Praise for THE POTTER’S FREEDOM…

Some time ago, I had the opportunity to hear a tape of Dr.

Geisler presenting his understanding of “moderate Calvinism.”
The errors in the tape were simply breathtaking, and so I was
very glad to hear that James White had undertaken a book-
length response to Dr. Geisler’s Chosen But Free. This
response is outstanding. The Potter’s Freedom is firmly,
pointedly, and charitably written. For someone of Dr. Geisler’s
stature to go into print with his misunderstandings was simply
inexplicable. The easy thing would have been to simply let the
whole thing go in an embarrassed silence, but in this book,
James White has assumed the role of a biblical friend to Dr.
Geisler. It deserves a wide reading.
—Douglas Wilson, Pastor; Editor of Credenda Agenda
Magazine
We are in debt to Norman Geisler for displaying once again
just how unpalatable the truth of the Scripture can be, even for
those who know its contents well. His screed against
Calvinism has provided the occasion for James R. White to
give us The Potter’s Freedom, a book that not only reveals the
poverty of Geisler’s argument but also provides us with a
refreshing presentation of the glorious truths of salvation by
grace alone as set forth by authentic Calvinism. The so-called
“moderate Calvinism” which Geisler embraces and presents in
Chosen But Free is no more useful than a moderate fire
department.
—Joel Nederhood, Pastor; Host of The Back to God Hour
The Potter’s Freedom is a more than adequate response to the
misleading and erroneous book, Chosen but Free by Norman
Geisler. Indeed, it is a fresh and helpful statement of true
Calvinism over against a system purporting to be “Calvinistic”
which is really nothing more than a brand of Arminianism.
This book should be widely disseminated and read as it will
clarify much that is often misunderstood about Calvinism.
—Jay Adams, Ph.D., Westminster Seminary, Escondido,
California
James White’s The Potter’s Freedom is a modern “Antidote to
Arminianism.” His devastating rebuttal to Geisler’s Chosen
But Free is a clearly expressed alternative to a theology which
halts between two opinions. White not only effectively
presents the case for the absolute sovereignty of God but
demonstrates Geisler’s tendency to faulty research, partial
citations, and fallacious argumentation. If you desire to better
understand the ways of God with man, this book is for you.
—Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Th.D.; Bahnsen Theological
Seminary
Many of us, who have otherwise profited from the writings of
Dr. Norman Geisler, have been grieved by his hapless attempt
to harmonize Calvinism and Arminianism. With the skill of a
surgeon, Dr. James R. White dissects Geisler’s arguments and
reveals them to be based on convoluted thinking,
inconsistencies, and misinterpretations of Scripture. I pray that
this book shall have a wide audience, not just as a definitive
rebuttal to Geisler, but also as a helpful exposition of the
Calvinisim/Arminianism debate.
—Dr. Erwin W. Lutzer, Senior Pastor, Moody Church,
Chicago
Piece by piece, James White dissects the flawed arguments of
Geisler’s misnamed “moderate Calvinism,” which is in fact a
very common breed of Arminianism. I am under no illusion
that Geisler will wave the white flag on this one, but every
honest reader of this book will know that he should.
—Jim Elliff, President, Christian Communicators
Worldwide
James White’s response to Chosen but Free arises from a
personal knowledge of Dr. Geisler and an appreciation for his
positive impact on the broader evangelical community. This
sincere appreciation, however, does not cause him to
downplay the seriously flawed presentation Geisler gives of
the issue of divine determination and human responsibility.
White’s work is an incisive and, in my opinion decisive
response to the specific fallacies of Geisler, and provides a
positive exposition of the issue that is valuable even apart
from its polemical context.
—Dr. Tom J. Nettles, Author of By His Grace & For His
Glory
The popular view of divine sovereignty which Geisler
advocates is a serious departure from the self-revelation of
God in the Scriptures. Indeed, White’s strongest suit is his
demonstration that Geisler’s argument is entirely indefensible
at the exegetical level. Some may read White and continue to
hold Geisler’s opinions, but they will no longer be comfortable
with those opinions.
—Fred G. Zaspel, Pastor, Author of The Theology of
Fulfillment
There can hardly be a topic more important or relevant than
the one James White tackles in this superb book. Who is free?
Man or God? Which is sovereign? These are the issues at stake
in this timely rebuttal of error and demonstration of biblical
truth. This book deserves a careful reading by all who truly
seek clarity and genuine biblical light.
—Rev. Richard D. Phillips, Assoc. Minister, Tenth
Presbyterian Church, Philadelphia, PA; V. P., Alliance of
Confessing Evangelicals
This vigorous defense of the Reformation exposes the
widening gap, and the growing hostility, between
“evangelicalism” and classic confessional Protestant
Christianity. Synergism may wear a happy face, but it
proclaims a hollow “gospel.” Written in the context of high-
profile rapprochement between evangelicals and Catholics,
and between Lutherans and Romanists, Dr. White turns up the
lights to show us the real struggle, namely, the fundamentally
religious contest between divine sovereignty and human
ability. Our salvation comes either from God or from man.
And in terms of both Bible teaching and human experience,
this is where everything starts—and ends.
—Nelson D. Kloosterman, Th.D., Professor of Ethics and
New Testament, Mid-America Reformed Seminary
James White combines sound biblical exegesis, theological
erudition, and a deep passion for truth in his able rebuttal to
Norman Geisler’s Chosen but Free. I am grateful that The
Potter’s Freedom powerfully exposes Geisler’s inconsistencies
and shows that his self-labeled “moderate Calvinism” is no
Calvinism at all. The Potter’s Freedom has far-reaching
consequences for any serious student of Reformed theology,
for Geisler is not a lone ranger in promoting historic Reformed
theology as “extreme Calvinism” and Semi-pelagianism as
“moderate Calvinism.” I pray that God may use this book
abundantly to remove many caricatures about the Reformed
faith and to move many to embrace unabashedly solid,
Reformed convictions.
—Dr. Joel R. Beeke, Author, President of Puritan
Reformed Theological Seminary, Grand Rapids, Michigan
The Reformed community has given Norman Geisler a “free”
pass for too long with respect to his pronouncements on God’s
sovereignty and free will. James White’s book, The Potter’s
Freedom, is the much-needed antidote to his flawed (and
failed) attempt, in typical Thomistic fashion, to synthesize
what cannot be synthesized. As soon as he insists that “God’s
grace works synergistically on free will,” and that the “one
condition” for receiving grace, namely, faith, “is logically
prior to regeneration” (pp. 233-34), he falls away from the
thought of the sixteenth-century Reformation and stands in
concert with the synergism of Rome. It is high time that he
who has warned the members of the Evangelical Theological
Society to “beware human philosophy” should heed his own
warning and listen less to Aquinas and more carefully to Holy
Scripture.
—Robert Reymond, Ph.D., Knox Theological Seminary,
Ft. Lauderdale, FL, Author of A New Systematic Theology
of the Christian Faith
A comparison of Norman Geisler’s book, Chosen But Free,
with James White’s book, The Potter’s Freedom, reveals two
observations. First, Geisler’s book is one of demagoguery,
propaganda, and an embarrassing lack of accurate scholarship,
while White’s book is one of careful and scholarly exegesis of
the Bible, coupled with a convincing exposition and defense of
the Reformed Faith (i.e., the Biblical Faith) from
misrepresentation and caricature. Second, James White
effectively distinguishes Norman Geisler’s theology from
Calvinism by pointing out this difference: Geisler believes in a
God who tries to save all the sinners He can, and Calvinism
believes in a God who saves all the sinners He will.
—Dr. Joseph C. Morecraft, III; Author, Pastor of
Chalcedon Presbyterian Church, Cumming, GA; Publisher
of The Counsel of Chalcedon
White’s work evidences unusually good exegetical and
theological insight into some of the greatest themes of the
Bible touching our Lord’s work of salvation, themes that
Geisler has abused, maltreated and generally misunderstood
(for example, Geisler attempts to make a case for a conditional
unconditional election!), such as the biblical doctrines of man
under sin, divine election and the sovereignty of God in
salvation. With a keener grasp of systematic theology and
exegesis of the text of Scripture White has taken Geisler to the
theological woodshed!
—S.Lewis Johnson, Jr., AB, ThM, ThD, Former Prof. of
New Testament & Systematic Theololgy at Dallas
Theological Seminary; Former Prof. of Bible & Systematic
Theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School
There are few authors today who are able to write with a
burning passion for truth, tempered by a charitable spirit
towards those with whom one disagrees. Having achieved that
balance, Dr. White’s contribution to the defense of Reformed
soteriology is both sound and timely. His biblical exegesis of
all the relevant passages, together with the misrepresentations
he corrects, is secured by detailed analysis and demonstrates
convincingly to the fair-minded reader that every true believer
in the Lord Jesus Christ has nothing of which to boast but in
the freedom of the Potter.
—David King, Pastor, Dayspring Presbyterian Church,
Forsyth, GA
 The
Potter’s
Freedom
A Defense of the Reformation
and a Rebuttal of Norman Geisler’s
Chosen But Free
James White
CALVARY PRESS PUBLISHING
WWW.CALVARYPRESS.COM
©2009, James R. White
All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions.
No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or
mechanical means including informational storage and retrieval systems without the
expressed permission from the publisher in writing, except in the case of brief
quotations embodied in critical articles or critical reviews.
Unless otherwise noted, the Bible quotations contained in this manual are from the
New American Standard Bible, © by the Lockman Foundation 1960, 1962, 1963,
1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995. Used by permission. Verses marked
KJV are taken from the King James Version of the Bible. Verses marked NKJV are
taken from the New King James Version of the Bible. Verses marked NIV are taken
from the New International Version of the Bible.
White, James R., 1962-
The Potter’s Freedom / James R. White.
Includes index.
ISBN: 1-879737-43-4
1. Justification 2. Evangelicalism—Controversial literature. 3. Evangelicalism
—Doctrines 4. Church—Contemporary Issues 5. Title

Manufactured in the United States of America

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 00 01 02 03
 I have had the great blessing of introducing many
brothers and sisters in the Lord to the doctrines of
grace. Nothing is more encouraging than to see those
who have come to know these divine truths growing
in grace and maturing in the faith.

It is with great love and thankfulness that I dedicate

this work to my close friend, Greek student, lifting
partner, and fellow Reformed Baptist,
Simon Escobedo III.
Acknowledgements
I am deeply grateful to the many brothers and sisters in the
Lord who have provided encouragement and assistance in this
work. Especially I wish to note Richard Pierce, Mike Porter,
Simon Escobedo III, Larry Vondra, Chris Jenkins, Pastor
David King, Jeff Niell, Kevin Johnson and all the kind folks in
#prosapologian, especially NIna ^‘^ (Han vet ikke mer enn
katten!). Special thanks go to Keith Plummer and Mark Ennis
for their help in research. I am grateful to the wonderful people
of the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church and my fellow elders
Don Cross and Don Fry. My thanks as well to Chris Arnzen
and the folks at Calvary Press. And of course I am thankful for
the patience and support of my wife Kelli and my children,
Joshua and Summer.
 CONTENTS

Preface
Foreword
Introduction
1. The Vital Issue
2. Determinately Knowing
3. The Inabilities of Man
4. The Will of Man
5. Unconditional Election a Necessity
6. CBF’s “Big Three” Verses
7. Jesus Teaches “Extreme Calvinism”
8. Unconditional Election
9. Responding to CBF on Romans 9
10. The Perfect Work of Calvary
11. Particular Redemption
12. Irresistable Grace is Resurrection Power
13. Irresistable Grace
14. The Potter’s Freedom Defended
Scripture Index
Appendices:
Dr. Geisler’s Class Project Reviewed and Refuted
Two Controversial Texts
 Preface by Phillip R. Johnson

A blurb on the back cover of Norman Geisler’s Chosen But

Free boasts that it is “the definitive work on the relationship
between divine election and human choice.” One would not
have expected anything less from a seminary professor of Dr.
Geisler’s stature and reputation.
Unfortunately, Chosen But Free is a disappointment. More
than a mere letdown, actually. It is a stunningly inept treatment
of the subject it undertakes. Dr. Geisler manages to
misrepresent his friends and foes alike. He utterly mangles the
doctrines of divine sovereignty, election, and free will—and in
the process he obscures and redefines the historical positions
of both Calvinism and Arminianism. The reader who has the
regrettable persistence to follow Dr. Geisler to the last page of
his work is certain to be hopelessly befuddled at the end of the
effort.
The fact is, if Dr. Geisler were not a teacher of such stature,
there would be no reason at all to pay any attention to his
book. It is a bad book by any measure.
Nevertheless, it is obvious that the book is having a
widespread impact among evangelicals—especially lay
readers. Hardly a week goes by that someone doesn’t ask me
about Geisler’s book, and especially Geisler’s fatuous claim
that the position set forth in his book deserves the label
“moderate Calvinism.”
 That’s why I am very grateful for James White’s careful,
patient, and thorough response to Geisler in The Potter’s
Freedom. Dr. White meticulously unravels the near-hopeless
tangle Geisler has made of these doctrines, skillfully
employing both Scripture and his solid grasp of historical
theology to make the truth unmistakably clear.
In answering Geisler, Dr. White has produced one of the
finest explanations of the doctrines of grace and the
sovereignty of God that has seen publication in recent years. I
hope this important book will reach a wide audience.
Phillip R. Johnson
Executive Director of John MacArthur’s Grace To You
Ministry
Elder of Grace Community Church, Sun Valley, CA
 Foreword to the Second Edition
October, 2008

I had not debated in quite as large a room as this one before. I

had come to Los Angeles to debate George Bryson, one of the
leading figures in the Calvary Chapel movement, and an
avowed opponent of Reformed theology, or “Calvinism.” He
had written a book, Calvinism: Weighed and Found Wanting,
and he and I had exchanged articles on the subject of God’s
sovereignty in the CRI Journal. We had been invited by a local
Christian radio station to come to the Anaheim Vineyard
church to debate the topic before a live audience. Noted
apologist Greg Koukl handled the moderating duties.
The debate is available for anyone to watch, or listen to, and
it is not my intention to comment on the substance of it here. I
was somewhat surprised at the fact that the audience was, as
far as I could tell, largely Reformed. Evidently, debates on this
topic do not excite the non-Reformed very much. A clear
witness was given that evening to the freedom of God in
salvation. But, I wish to relate some of the conversations I had
with those who approached me during the break in the debate,
and afterward. Numerous young men came up to me to
encourage me to “press on” and “tell it like it is.” Many spoke
of their excitement at having come to understand God’s
sovereignty and the perfection of the work of Christ. They
spoke glowingly of coming to understand the power of grace,
and how often this had led to their being removed from
positions of service in their current churches, or being kicked
out of educational institutions. The stories reflected what I
have been hearing for years from those who have come to
question their traditions and embrace a thoroughly biblical
theology of man’s deadness in sin and God’s kingly freedom.
And over and over again one common theme arose. For over
and over these young folks would hand me the same, dog-
eared, marked up book to sign: The Potter’s Freedom.
I can thankfully say I have lost count of how many people
have come to see the truths of God’s sovereign grace through
the reading of this book. I am sure it was not Dr. Geisler’s
intention to usher so many into the fold of Reformed theology
when he first published Chosen But Free. But the book you
now hold in your hand, written in response to Dr. Geisler’s
work, illustrates a truth I have lived by for many years now.
Truth shines the most brightly against the backdrop of error.
That is why I have engaged in more than seventy-five public
debates in defense of the Christian faith over the past twenty-
five years: there are times when the clearest, most forceful,
useful way to communicate the truth is through comparing it
with error. And when it comes to “intramural” discussions,
such as this one, I truly believe God’s people can see when one
side is handling the Word of God aright, and when one side is
dependent upon circular argumentation and tradition. We
should never fear taking our faith home to the pages of
Scripture, for that is our lifeblood, the source of all sound and
compelling Christian truth.
I believe the reason this book has been used to bring so
many to an understanding of God’s truth in this matter of the
gospel is easily discerned through a comparison of its text with
that of Chosen But Free: this book’s primary essence is
exegetical. It opens the Scriptures and lets them speak. It is not
a work of philosophy. It is not even a work of systematic
theology per se. I am Reformed because I must, as a Christian
minister and as an apologist, apply the same standards to my
own faith I apply to others. Hence, I must handle the
Scriptures consistently and fairly. And when I do so, they
teach me God’s freedom and sovereignty in glorifying Himself
through the work of Jesus Christ in the gospel.
This is what I have found to resonate in the hearts of my
fellow believers. Christ’s sheep hear His voice, and all I have
to do is get out of the way and let the Scriptures do their work
to see true followers of Christ respond to the Spirit-breathed
words of the Bible. Of course, there is an added benefit in
addressing this topic as I have in The Potter’s Freedom. Since
this book responds to the presentation of another, I am able to
provide a strong contrast between the man-centeredness of
reducing the work of Christ to “Jesus made us savable” and
the God-centeredness of the simple proclamation, “Jesus
saves.” It is the contrast between a well known non-Reformed
writer doing his best to hold together a contradictory system of
synergism and the Scripture’s consistent monergism that has
“turned on the light” for so many who had been confused
about this topic. Seeing the impact of having an over-riding
philosophical priority that turns the Scriptures on their head,
and that repeatedly, can help the reader see what is important
and definitional. It clarifies and cuts through the fog. Sound
conclusions can be drawn once a person is convinced they
have heard both sides, and only one side has remained
consistent.
And so I offer this second edition of The Potter’s Freedom
in the hopes that this work will continue to help clarify the
truths of God’s sovereign grace. I have added a full appendix
responding to Dr. Geisler’s 2nd edition wherein he (or,
someone) has provided a critique of this work. I have also
added another appendix covering 1 Timothy 4:10 and 2 Peter
1:1. It is my hope this new edition will continue to edify the
saints and glorify the Lord Jesus Christ.
James White
Phoenix, October, 2008
 INTRODUCTION

Dr. Norman Geisler is a nationally-known and well-respected

apologist. The head of Southern Evangelical Seminary, Dr.
Geisler has written dozens of books and countless articles.
Many of his works have been tremendously useful to the
evangelical Christian community. He has spoken widely on a
variety of topics. He is a wonderfully personable man, and I
can say I have enjoyed more than one lunch and dinner with
him over the years.
When Dr. Geisler warns the Christian community about a
dangerous belief, many listen. Therefore, when he uses
particularly strong language about a popular and widespread
theological viewpoint, the wise person will consider well what
he has to say. In particular, in his book, Chosen But Free, he
seeks (in the majority of the text) to dissuade his readers from
embracing one particular viewpoint that is widely represented
in the modern day. He describes this viewpoint’s adherents as
presenting conclusions that are “unsupported by the many
texts they employ.”1 In establishing whether embracing this
system is important or not, Geisler warns us that “Belief
affects behavior, and so ideas have consequences….Likewise,
false doctrine will lead to false deeds.”2 And this system
seems particularly pernicious in Dr. Geisler’s view. It can lead
to failure to take personal responsibility for our actions.3 It can
“have a devastating effect on one’s own salvation, to say
nothing of one’s enthusiasm to reach others for Christ.”4 This
belief even lays the ground for universalism,5 undermines trust
in the love of God,6 and in so doing has even been the
“occasion for disbelief and even atheism for many.”7 The God
presented by adherents of this system “is not worthy of
worship” and “does not represent God at all.”8 Indeed, those
who follow this line of thought are in danger of moving from
their current viewpoint “into being a universalist—from one
unfortunate belief to another.”9 So “unfortunate” is this
viewpoint that it even undermines the motivation for
evangelism as well as the motivation for intercessory prayer!10
But that is not all. Dr. Geisler insists that this system is
“contradictory.”11 The proponents of this view “go through
exegetical contortions in order to make a text say what their
preconceived theology mandates that it must say.”12 He says
the Bible is “seriously lacking” in verses that support some of
the main elements of this system.13 These people “misuse”
texts of Scripture,14 and he bluntly says that the God
worshipped by these people “is not all-loving.”15 He describes
central aspects of this belief as “shocking.”16 And in the
strongest terms he insists that the very heart of this system’s
belief is a “hideous error,”17 and that this system is at its heart
“theologically inconsistent, philosophically insufficient, and
morally repugnant.”18
To what theological system is Dr. Geisler referring? Is this a
new review of Mormonism, the Watchtower Society, or
possibly Roman Catholicism? No, all of the above phrases are
used by Dr. Geisler to describe the system of belief that
historically has been called Calvinism. All of these phrases are
used of simple Reformed theology, the theology of Calvin, the
Westminster Confession of Faith, the 1689 Baptist Confession
of Faith, Francis Turretin, the Puritans, John Owen, John
Bunyan, Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, William
Cunningham, Charles Haddon Spurgeon, Charles Hodge, J.
Gresham Machen, B.B. Warfield, Hermann Bavinck, Abraham
Kuyper, John Murray, Edwin Palmer, John Gerstner, John
Piper, and R.C. Sproul.
Surprised? I certainly was when I first read Chosen But Free
(hereafter CBF) in June of 1999. I knew the book was coming
out, and in fact had discussed two elements of the book with
Dr. Geisler while the book was being written.19 But I was in
no way prepared for the fact that CBF would take the direction
it does, nor that it would have such strong anti-Reformed
conclusions. I immediately recognized that a response was
needed. CBF will cause great confusion for those examining
these vital topics. As an elder in a Reformed Baptist Church I
am always blessed to be able to introduce men and women to
the great truths of the Reformation: truths directly challenged
by CBF. And as an apologist, I firmly believe that the only
consistently biblical response to the challenges made to the
Christian faith is that offered by Reformed theology.

Reinventing the Wheel?

There are many tremendous works in print defining and
defending the great biblical faith of the Reformation. God has
been most gracious in raising up men like Calvin,20
Edwards,21 Turretin,22 Warfield,23 Palmer,24 Sproul,25 and
Piper26 who have been gifted to communicate His truth to their
generations in a unique fashion. These works really need no
defense, for any person reading them can see their internal
consistency and depth of exegetical insight. These are
profoundly biblical works written by men who are deeply
committed to the authority of the Scriptures as the Word of
God.
So why offer this small volume to the Christian church? I
have already written an introduction to the doctrines of
grace,27 and will not seek to repeat what I have written there.
This work is prompted solely by the publication of Dr.
Norman Geisler’s Chosen But Free. CBF seeks to present
what it calls “moderate Calvinism” as a “balanced
perspective” regarding the tremendously important concept of
God’s sovereignty and man’s will. Given that Dr. Geisler is a
prolific author who has addressed a tremendously wide variety
of topics,28 his work automatically carries the weight of his
previous experience and scholarship. As a result, many will
take his conclusions at face value. But it is my firm conviction
that CBF will be a source of great confusion, not
enlightenment, on the subject of the sovereignty of God and
the will of man. Why do I say this? I offer five sources of
confusion that I believe are created by the discussion in CBF.

Redefinition of the Terms of the Debate

 The first thing that any informed reader discovers in reading
CBF is that it presents a complete revision of the historic set of
terms that have been used by theologians to frame and explain
the debate. This is one of the most disturbing aspects of this
work in that it cannot possibly do anything else than cause
tremendous confusion on the part of those who are attempting
to understand the Reformed/Arminian debate. For some reason
Dr. Geisler chose arbitrarily to identify his position as
“moderate Calvinism” and historic Reformed theology
becomes “extreme Calvinism.” The problem becomes clear
when we consider for just a moment that Dr. Geisler: 1) denies
Calvin’s doctrine of God’s sovereignty and decrees; 2) denies
Calvin’s doctrine of the total depravity of man and his
enslavement to sin; 3) denies Calvin’s belief that God’s
electing grace is given without any condition whatsoever to a
particular people (the elect); and 4) denies, vociferously,
Calvin’s doctrine of the grace of God that brings new life to
dead sinners. One could even argue that Dr. Geisler disagrees
with Calvin’s doctrine of atonement and with the very
foundation of Calvin’s doctrine of perseverance as well. If that
is true, why should Dr. Geisler wish to be called any kind of
Calvinist at all? I honestly do not understand the desire to take
a theological moniker that does not in the slightest represent
one’s fundamental beliefs.
Dr. Geisler’s “moderate Calvinism” will be shown to be
merely a modified form of historic Arminianism. In fact, there
are really only two elements of the viewpoint of CBF that are
in fact “borrowed” from Calvinism: the concept of a
substitutionary atonement (alien to Arminianism) and “eternal
security,” likewise utterly inconsistent with Arminian beliefs.
Beyond these two issues, CBF presents a thoroughly non-
Reformed position under the name “moderate Calvinism.”
And such is simply indefensible.

Poor Representation
CBF takes no pains to accurately or adequately represent the
Reformed position that it so strongly denounces. While some
mention is made of a small number of Reformed works, even
these are normally quoted in such a brief fashion as to make
their citation less than useful. A person reading CBF would
see a straw-man view of the reality, not the real thing.
Of course, immediately someone will say, “That’s what
everyone says.” Possibly so: however, through the text of this
work we will document the repeated instances where CBF,
even while admitting what Reformed writers assert, rejects this
and substitutes a more easily defeated enemy. For example,
CBF will cite Reformed writers speaking of the human will,
but, on the same page, will insist that it is their view that the
will is “destroyed.” All through the book the Reformed view
of God’s sovereign regeneration of the sinner, where God
graciously grants spiritual life, faith, and repentance to a
person who was spiritually dead, condemned, and incapable of
doing anything pleasing in God’s sight, is inaccurately
portrayed as “force” and “coercion,” all in an attempt to make
Calvinism look like something it is not. Such inaccuracies
only add to the confusion produced by the redefinition of
terms.
Most frustrating to the Reformed believer who has provided
a reasoned and Scripturally-based defense of his or her beliefs
is the utter lack of serious interaction on the part of CBF with
such works. There is simply no attempt to interact on a
meaningful level with the many Reformed works that provide
in-depth, serious biblical exegesis and argumentation in
defense of the Reformed position. While some works, such as
Owen’s The Death of Death in the Death of Christ and Piper’s
The Justification of God, are mentioned, and even cited, the
responses are so surface-level that they amount to nothing
more than a dismissal, not a rebuttal. And even here, the
Reformed material is handled in such a cavalier manner as to
make even the effort of citing it worthless. This is clearly seen
in the way in which CBF will quote as little as a single
sentence, and on the basis of this, accuse Reformed writers of
“changing” Scripture. For example, Dr. Geisler “quotes” from
John Owen and writes:
Arguably, the best defense of extreme Calvinism on
limited atonement comes from John Owen. His
 response to this passage is a shocking retranslation to:
“God so loved his elect throughout the world, that he
gave His Son with this intention, that by him believers
might be saved”! This needs no response, simply a
sober reminder that God repeatedly exhorts us not to
add to or subtract from His words (Deut. 4:2; Prov.
30:6; Rev. 22:18-19).29
This citation is from page 214 of Owen’s work. Was this great
Christian scholar suggesting that we should “retranslate” John
3:16? Is this a fair representation of Owen’s position? Not in
the slightest. This citation comes toward the end of a lengthy
discussion of the passage (a discussion, I note, that is
significantly longer and in more depth than any discussion of
any passage in all of CBF). There is no attempt whatsoever on
the part of CBF to address the actual argument and the
reasoning set forth. Here, in context, is what Owen said:
First, If this word whosoever be distributive, then it
is restrictive of the love of God to some, and not to
others,—to one part of the distribution, and not the
other. And if it do not restrain the love of God,
intending the salvation of some, then it is not
distributive of the fore-mentioned object of it; and if it
do restrain it, then all are not intended in the love
which moved God to give his Son. Secondly, I deny
that the word here is distributive of the object of God’s
love, but only declarative of his end and aim in giving
Christ in the pursuit of that love,—to wit, that all
believers might be saved. So that the sense is, “God so
loved his elect throughout the world, that he gave his
Son with this intention, that by him believers might be
saved.” And this is all that is by any (besides a few
worthless cavils) objected from this place to disprove
our interpretation….30
As anyone reading the passage in context can see, to charge
Owen with alteration of the Word of God is quite simply
ridiculous. He not only specifically says, “the sense is…” (a
phrase that would have to be cited on the basis of mere
honesty if CBF is serious in accusing Owen of “adding” to the
Word of God), but it is painfully obvious that Owen is
interpreting the passage in the light of the preceding ten pages
of argumentation he had provided. One cannot avoid noting
that aside from this allegedly “sober reminder” offered by
Geisler, there is not a single word of meaningful
argumentation or refutation provided.
The same thing is true of CBF’s treatment of John Piper’s
The Justification of God. While CBF acknowledges the
existence of the work, and recognizes the high place it holds in
the thinking of Reformed exegetes and apologists, there is
almost nothing in it that smacks of the first attempt to
seriously respond to the conclusions so soberly and
masterfully presented by Piper. For example, Piper spends
many pages (pp. 56-73) fairly, carefully, and most importantly,
exegetically examining the issue of whether Romans 9 is
addressing individuals and their personal salvation, or merely
addressing nations. In so doing he provides forty-one
footnotes, addresses numerous issues regarding both the
Hebrew and Septuagint texts, and cites many (in full contexts)
who present a viewpoint other than his own. His conclusion,
then, is exegetical in nature. Note his words:
The interpretation which tries to restrict this
predestination or unconditional election to nations
rather than individuals or to historical tasks rather than
eternal destinies must ignore or distort the problem
posed in Rom. 9:1-5, the individualism of 9:6b, the
vocabulary and logical structure of 9:6b-8, the closely
analogous texts elsewhere in Paul, and the
implications of 9:14-23. The position is exegetically
untenable.31
What is truly amazing is that there is not the first attempt to
deal with anything presented by Piper in this section on the
part of CBF. The only citation of this section by CBF reads,
Even Piper, who holds that the Romans passage is
speaking of individual election to eternal salvation
admits of modern scholars that “the list of those who
 see no individual predestination to eternal life or death
is impressive.”32
The footnote goes on to cite Piper’s quotation of those who
disagree with his position, but the entire book never once
attempts to deal with Piper’s refutation of the viewpoints he
cites! And, to be fair, Dr. Geisler should have likewise cited,
from the same page, this statement, “The list of modern
scholars on the other side is just as impressive.” To cite only
this passage, and ignore the exegesis that follows that utterly
undermines Geisler’s position, is simply unacceptable. This is
only exacerbated by the fact that on page 83 of CBF Piper is
again cited and said to be mistaken in his view of God’s
eternal predestination of Jacob and Esau, but nowhere is an
attempt made to even begin to interact with the pages and
pages of exegetical argumentation provided by Piper in
support of his position. While Geisler is content to simply cite
secondary sources regarding Romans 9, Piper does original
exegetical work. It is not sufficient response on Geisler’s part
to simply allege an error while ignoring the counter-evidence.
R.K. Wright experienced a very similar situation that he
relates concerning his studies at Trinity Evangelical Divinity
School under Clark Pinnock in the early 1970s. Pinnock
directed him to Arminian writers for “balance” in his research.
Wright comments:
This material only confirmed my suspicion that
Arminian writers had no understanding of the
questions I was struggling with and showed no
willingness to interact seriously with Calvinist
exegesis. In fact, they wrote as if they were in a
historical vacuum. Apart from a passing nod toward
Calvin or a reference to Augustine, they wrote as if no
Calvinist had ever dealt with these issues in detail
before. They made no attempt, for example, to answer
the meticulous demonstration by John Gill that the
Arminian exegesis of key passages (such as 2 Pet 3:9
and 2 Tim 2:4-6 [sic: 1 Tim 2:4-6]) is fallacious. I did
not see then, and do not see now, why Gill should be
treated with contempt simply because he is so detailed
 and writes in the labored and finicky style so common
to the 1700s. Pinnock made derogatory remarks about
Gill, but showed no concern to answer Gill’s
painstaking treatment of Matthew 23:37, which I
raised as an example of a solid Calvinist response to
careless Arminian exegesis.33
The parallels to CBF are striking. CBF offers no substantial
refutation of Reformed exegesis. Indeed, if all one read was
CBF, one would not be aware that there was substantial
Reformed exegetical defense of the Calvinistic position. In the
same way, Geisler’s work makes no attempt to respond to
Gill’s comments on Matthew 23:37 despite the fact that he
makes use of the passage eleven times in CBF. The Arminian
understanding is assumed but nowhere defended. It seems,
then, that CBF falls into the same category of Arminian
writings as those examined by Dr. Wright.

Knowingly Predetermining?
The third source of confusion comes from Dr. Geisler’s
rather unique, yet, I believe, completely unworkable concept
of God’s foreknowledge and man’s “free will.” The concept is
confusing because it allows Dr. Geisler to use mutually
exclusive terms in the same sentence as if they actually “fit”
together. In reality, as we will see, the terms have been
redefined from their historical or biblical usages to allow them
to “fit” together, but without a knowledge of the background
of Geisler’s position, most will not see how the position
simply does not survive examination. What is most troubling
is the only conclusion that can be drawn from an analysis of
the position espoused in CBF: there is no positive, free decree
of God that determines what takes place in this, God’s
creation. We will carefully unpack all of this particular aspect
of CBF in chapter two.

Silence Speaks Volumes

 In what is advertised to be the “definitive” work on the
subject of divine sovereignty and personal responsibility one
would expect to find full and fair discussions of all of the key
passages that have been used to press the claims of both sides.
Additionally, in a work that is obviously coming from one of
the two perspectives (in this case, CBF is plainly non-
Reformed and seeks to undermine that position in the majority
of its argumentation), it can be logically expected that the key
passages pressed by Reformed advocates would be addressed
in at least somewhat of a comprehensive manner. But such is
surely not the case with CBF. Instead, not only are vitally
important passages utterly passed over, but in the majority of
instances, key and definitional passages are dismissed (not
exegeted) without any effort to interact with the texts at all.
The Reformed advocate who finds his beliefs under constant
attack cannot help but feel tremendous frustration at this
constant element of CBF.
For example, one of the strongest passages in all the New
Testament that plainly asserts the Reformed belief in the
sovereignty of God is John 6:37, where the Lord Jesus says,
“All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one
who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out.” The words are
so clear and compelling that surely there must be some lengthy
attempt in CBF to explain how the Lord can assert that all that
the Father gives Him will come to Him. Such words present
both the sovereignty of God (the Father gives men to the Son)
as well as the certainty of His work of salvation (all that the
Father gives will come to the Son). But there is barely one
short paragraph in all of CBF on the passage. It is found in a
section where Dr. Geisler is speaking of the “twin pillars” of
sovereignty and human responsibility. Here is the entire
commentary on John 6:37 in all of CBF:
Another example of both God’s sovereignty and our
responsibility being found in the same scriptural text
is found in Jesus’ statement from John 6:37: “All that
the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever
comes to me I will never drive away.” On the one
hand, only those the Father preordains to do so will
come to Christ (John 6:44). On the other hand, it is
 also true that “whoever” chooses to come will be
saved (Rom. 10:13).
This is all CBF has to say about John 6:37, a passage that
teaches “extreme Calvinism” if there ever was one. Likewise,
when addressing the subject of “limited atonement,” the key
passages presenting this vital truth are lumped into a single
paragraph (page 76) and provided with a handful of almost
irrelevant sentences in reply. A serious Reformed theologian
can only shake his head at the firm anti-Reformed conclusions
offered upon such shallow argumentation. Every aspect of the
biblical evidence treated in CBF suffers from this kind of
problem.

Poor Exegesis
The Reformed position is nothing if not rich in the most in-
depth exegetical work of generations of men who have labored
diligently at the task of fairly and honestly dealing with the
Scriptures in their original tongues. Calvinists are known for
writing entire books on short passages of Scripture, and
preaching entire series of sermons on just a few verses. The
Reformed person is exhorted to handle the text of Scripture
with great care and concern to listen to the words of Scripture
in their own context, constantly seeking to draw out from
Scripture its meaning rather than pressing onto Scripture a
meaning that is not a part of the original context. Even
Calvin’s detractors are forced to admit the value of his
commentaries on the Bible even to this day.
But exegesis is not the forte of CBF. Very few passages are
addressed in a truly exegetical fashion, and in most cases,
mere assertion takes the place of meaningful consideration of
the important elements of the task of biblical interpretation.
Unfortunately, CBF provides far more examples of eisegesis
than it does of exegesis. Since this book will focus upon a
biblical defense of the Reformed position, example after
example will be offered in the text itself. But just one brief
citation that is related to John 6, mentioned above: In
mustering a few citations in defense of the idea that anyone
can believe and that true, saving faith is not a gift from God,
Geisler cites John 3:16 and 18, and then writes, “And,
‘Whoever comes to me I will never drive away’ (John 6:37).”
Even a cursory glance at the text reveals that this partial
citation is the second half of a full sentence; that there is no
indefinite relative pronoun here (“whoever”), but instead it
literally reads, “and the one coming.” The sentence defines
who this “coming” one is: “All that the Father gives Me will
come to Me.” The one coming to Christ in John 6:37b is the
one of the entire body of the elect given by the Father to the
Son in 6:37a. The text literally contradicts Geisler’s thesis, yet,
by not taking it in its own context, the verse is cited to present
the exact opposite of its intended meaning. This kind of
eisegetical procedure marks the entirety of CBF.

Clearing the Confusion

Christ’s sheep hear His voice. Despite all the distracting
noises of the world, Christ quietly teaches His people His
truth. At times we hold so tenaciously to our traditions, to our
self-importance, to our misconceptions, that the process is a
long and arduous one. Deep-seated traditions are hard to
dislodge, as the Apostle Peter discovered. But God is patient
with His people.
There is great confidence in trusting in God’s sovereignty,
especially when it comes to the fact that even Christians are
willing to place their own supposed freedom and autonomy
over the true freedom and autonomy of God. I have seen many
precious souls struggle through these foundational issues and
emerge changed, strengthened, with a new and lasting
appreciation of the holiness and love of God along with a
passion for His grace that cannot be erased. While I am
grieved at the confusion that books like CBF cause, I am
confident that the Word is so clear, so plain, and so
compelling, that the mere presentation of its truths is sufficient
for the child of God. And it is to that we now turn.

The Format
 In past days it was common for theologians to write
volumes in response to someone else. They did so expecting
that their audience had read and assimilated the information in
their opponent’s work. Publishers are hesitant to present such
works today, preferring merely a “positive presentation” rather
than a direct response.
The Reformed tradition is rich in honest dialogue and
debate. Those who love truth will not be offended by honest,
direct refutation and interaction. The “politically correct”
culture we live in should not be allowed to silence meaningful
theological debate. Dr. Geisler himself has written:
Third, what about those who insist that drawing lines
will divide Christians? In response it must be lovingly
but firmly maintained that it is better to be divided by
truth than to be united by error. There is an unhealthy
tendency in evangelical Christianity to hide under the
banner of Christian charity while sacrificing doctrinal
purity.34
In the spirit of these words I offer a rebuttal of Dr. Geisler’s
work. This is not meant to be a presentation of the Reformed
view so ably accomplished by others: my positive presentation
will be limited to establishing facts that are not in evidence
from a reading of CBF. Instead, I will be demonstrating that
the biblical argumentation provided by Norman Geisler is in
error. It is my hope that the reader will be edified by the
consistent focus upon biblical exegesis, for this is, truly, the
heart and soul of Reformed theology.
Notes
1 Norman Geisler, Chosen but Free (Bethany House, 1999),
p. 100.
2 Ibid., p. 131.
3 p. 132.
4 p. 134.
5 Ibid.
6 p. 135.
7 Ibid.
8 Ibid.
9 p. 136.
10 pp. 136-137.
11 p. 21
12 p. 28.
13 p. 35.
14 p. 82.
15 p. 85.
16 p. 86.
17 p. 205.
18 p. 242.
19 Specifically, I had asserted, in response to his claim that
Calvin did not embrace particular redemption (limited
atonement), that there are a number of excellent works on
the subject that come to the opposite conclusion. I had also
objected to his use of the phrase “extreme Calvinist.”
20 There are a number of Calvin’s works that are useful here,
including, of course, his Institutes of the Christian Religion
 as well as his Concerning the Eternal Predestination of
God.
21 Many of Edwards’ sermons are focused upon this doctrine.
See The Works of Jonathan Edwards (Banner of Truth,
1984).
22 Turretin is not easy reading, but incredibly thorough. See
his Institutes of Elenctic Theology (Presbyterian and
Reformed, 1992).
23 See The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield (Baker Book
House, 1981), Volume 5, “Calvin and Calvinism.”
24 Edwin Palmer, The Five Points of Calvinism (Baker Book
House, 1972).
25 Dr. Sproul’s works are especially important as they figure
prominently in this work, since Dr. Geisler especially
focuses on him and cites from his works in Chosen But
Free. See Chosen by God (Tyndale House Publishers,
1986) and Willing to Believe (Baker Book House, 1997).
26 Most importantly is Piper’s tremendous exegesis of
Romans 9 found in The Justification of God (Baker Book
House, 1993).
27 James White, God’s Sovereign Grace (Crowne
Publications, 1991) and Drawn by the Father (Crowne
Publications, 1991).
28 And many in a tremendous way. For example, I heartily
recommend his work with Nix, A General Introduction to
the Bible (Moody Press, 1986).
29 Chosen But Free, p. 193.
30 John Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ
(The Banner of Truth Trust, 1985), p. 214.
31 John Piper, The Justification of God (Grand Rapids: Baker
Book House, 1993), p. 73.
32 Chosen But Free, p. 82, footnote 7.
33 R.K. Wright, No Place For Sovereignty: What’s Wrong
with Freewill Theism (InterVarsity Press, 1996), pp. 38-39.
34 Norman Geisler, The Battle for the Resurrection (Thomas
Nelson Publishers, 1992), p. 171.
 Chapter 1

The Vital Issue

The Society of Jesus (the Jesuits) was founded by the industry

and endeavor of Ignatius of Loyola. This fiery Roman Catholic
zealot dedicated his life to the defense of the Roman Church
against the “heresies” of the Protestant Reformation. Toward
the end of his life he wrote the following:
Seeing the progress which the heretics have made in
a short time, spreading the poison of their evil
teaching throughout so many countries and peoples,
and making use of the verse of the Apostles to
describe their progress, ‘And their speech spreadeth
like a canker’, it would seem that our society [i.e., the
Jesuits], having been accepted by Divine Providence
among the efficacious means to repair such great
damage, should be solicitous to prepare the proper
steps, such as are quickly applied and can be widely
adopted, thus exerting itself to the utmost of its
powers to preserve what is still sound and to restore
what has fallen sick of the plague of heresy, especially
in the northern nations.
The heretics have made their false theology popular
and presented it in a way that is within the capacity of
the common people. They preach it to the people and
teach it in the schools, and scatter booklets which can
be bought and understood by many, and make their
influence felt by means of their writings when they
cannot do so by their preaching. Their success is
largely due to the negligence of those who should
have shown some interest; and the bad example and
the ignorance of Catholics, especially the clergy, have
made such ravages in the vineyard of the Lord.1
 One of the charges Loyola made to his followers involved
the danger of allowing the Protestants to so emphasize the
power of God that the “freedom of man” would be eclipsed.
One of his followers, Luis de Molina, dedicated many years
attempting to fulfill the vision of Loyola. He finally produced
an entire philosophical theory of divine knowledge called
scientia media (the concept of “middle knowledge”): the idea
that God knows what free agents will do given certain
circumstances, but their actions are still “free” in the sense that
they are not fixed. The entire reason why the concept was
developed was to “get around” the preaching of the Reformers
that emphasized the sovereignty of God, the freedom of God,
as ultimate in all things. The “heretics” were preaching that
God is the Potter, men are the clay, formed as He wills, not as
they will. Such a teaching was devastating to the Roman
concept of the Church as the mediator and dispenser of graces.
Such a system could speak often of grace as long as that grace
was merely a necessary aid but never an efficient power that
saves. As long as the ultimate “control” of salvation was kept
out of God’s hands, all would be well. Sadly, to this very day,
nominal “Protestants” embrace Molina’s desperate attempt to
get around God’s freedom.
Loyola was not the first to see the Reformed emphasis upon
the freedom of God and the creatureliness of men as a deadly
threat to Roman Catholic theology. In fact, the first written
debate of the Reformation itself was focused on the very same
issue.
As Martin Luther closed his monumental response to the
Roman Catholic scholar and theologian, Desiderius Erasmus,
titled, The Bondage of the Will, he made it plain how he
believed that the issue of God’s absolute freedom and man’s
absolute dependence is, in fact, the very central issue of the
entire Reformation. He affirmed, with clarity you will only
rarely hear in modern Lutheran preachers or theologians, the
utter dependence of man upon God:
For if we believe it to be true, that God fore-knows
and fore-ordains all things; that He can be neither
deceived nor hindered in His Prescience and
 Predestination; and that nothing can take place but
according to His Will, (which reason herself is
compelled to confess;) then, even according to the
testimony of reason herself, there can be no “Free-
will”—in man,—in angel,—or in any creature!2
But take careful note of how this great Reformer understood
the absolute centrality of God’s freedom and man’s bondage in
sin:
In this, moreover, I give you (Erasmus) great praise,
and proclaim it—you alone in pre-eminent distinction
from all others, have entered upon the thing itself; that
is, the grand turning point of the cause; and have not
wearied me with those irrelevant points about popery,
purgatory, indulgences, and other like baubles, rather
than causes, with which all have hitherto tried to hunt
me down,—though in vain! You, and you alone saw,
what was the grand hinge upon which the whole
turned, and therefore you attacked the vital part at
once; for which, from my heart, I thank you.3
A more modern translation of the passage goes like this:
Moreover, I give you hearty praise and
commendation on this further account—that you
alone, in contrast to all others, have attacked the real
thing, that is, the essential issue. You have not wearied
me with those extraneous issues about the Papacy,
purgatory, indulgences and such like—trifles, rather
than issues—in respect of which almost all to date
have sought my blood (though without success); you,
and you alone, have seen the hinge on which all turns,
and aimed for the vital spot.4
Do not allow Luther’s words to pass you by. We must
understand what Luther meant by “the thing itself” or “the real
thing.” What is “the cause,” “the whole,” “on which all
turns”? To what does he refer? To the very Reformation itself!
Luther is speaking to his Roman Catholic opponent about the
very essential and definitional issue of the entire Reformation.
What, then, is the “grand turning point of the cause,” the
“essential issue,” the “grand hinge upon which the whole
turned,” and “the vital part”? The truth of predestination
(God’s freedom) and man’s depravity (his will in bondage)!
Here at the very inception of the Reformation the definitional
issue is laid out: God is the absolutely free Creator, the Potter,
who has complete sovereignty over the pots, humans, who, as
fallen creatures, find their wills enslaved to sin, in bondage
and unable to “cooperate” with any offered grace.
This is the soil from which springs the Reformed emphasis
upon sola fide, “faith alone,” the truth that one is justified not
by any meritorious action or work but by faith in Jesus Christ
alone. One cannot claim to be faithful to the Reformation by
crying “sola fide” when the foundation of that call is
abandoned. The truth that God saves by Himself, by His own
power, on the basis of His own will, defines the message of the
Reformers. Those who follow their lead are convinced that
their faith is founded firmly upon the consistent interpretation
of Scripture alone (sola scriptura) and all of Scripture (tota
scriptura). One cannot claim to stand in harmony with Luther,
Zwingli, Bucer, or Calvin without believing both in the
doctrine of justification by faith as well as the truth of God’s
absolute freedom and man’s bondage in sin.
Few have had the ability to speak with the clarity and force
of Charles Haddon Spurgeon, the great Baptist evangelist of
London. Regarding this issue he wrote:
There is no attribute of God more comforting to His
children than the doctrine of Divine Sovereignty.
Under the most adverse circumstances, in the most
severe troubles, they believe that Sovereignty hath
ordained their afflictions, that Sovereignty overrules
them, and that Sovereignty will sanctify them all.
There is nothing for which the children of God ought
more earnestly to contend than the dominion of their
Master over all creation — the kingship of God over
all the works of His own hands — the throne of God,
and His right to sit upon that throne.
 On the other hand, there is no doctrine more hated by
worldlings, no truth of which they have made such a
football, as the great, stupendous, but yet most certain
doctrine of the Sovereignty of the infinite Jehovah.
Men will allow God to be everywhere except upon His
throne. They will allow Him to be in His workshop to
fashion worlds and to make stars. They will allow
Him to be in His almonry to dispense His alms and
bestow His bounties. They will allow Him to sustain
the earth and bear up the pillars thereof, or light the
lamps of Heaven, or rule the waves of the ever-
moving ocean; but when God ascends His throne, His
creatures then gnash their teeth; and when we
proclaim an enthroned God, and His right to do as He
wills with His own, to dispose of His creatures as He
thinks well, without consulting them in the matter,
then it is that we are hissed and execrated, and then it
is that men turn a deaf ear to us, for God on His throne
is not the God they love. They love Him anywhere
better than they do when He sits with His scepter in
His hand and His crown upon His head. But it is God
upon the throne that we love to preach. It is God upon
His throne whom we trust.5
The Christian loves God as He reveals Himself. The non-
Christian seeks to conform God to an image that is less
threatening to him in his rebellion. It is a work of grace in the
heart that allows a person to love God as God really is, not as
we wish He would be. The Christian desires to love God truly.
This is the single issue that separates the supernatural
religion of Christianity from the man-centered religions that
surround us. Whether the work of salvation is perfectly
accomplished by God for His own glory or is dependent upon
man’s cooperation and assistance is the watershed issue that
separates biblical Christianity from everything else. The
specifics of the debate revolve around what it means to confess
that “salvation is of the Lord.” What does this necessarily
mean with reference to man’s abilities (or inabilities)? What
does this tell us about the atoning work of Christ, or the
perfection of Christ’s work of salvation? These are the issues
of the debate.

The Thrust of This Work

The writer of this work has absolute confidence that the
Reformed proclamation of the Gospel will never pass from
this world, and that the work of Christ’s kingdom represented
by that proclamation will continue until He rules and reigns.
Why? Because God’s Word will never fall. As long as the
Holy Scriptures exist and the Holy Spirit brings regeneration
in the hearts of men, the message of God’s free and glorious
grace will continue.
The message of the gospel of grace is, first and foremost, a
biblical message. It is not philosophy that leads the Reformed
believer to his or her conclusions: it is biblical exegesis that
does so. And for this reason the firm ground upon which the
true Calvinist stands in defense of his belief in the absolute
freedom of God is the text of Holy Writ. Because of this
conviction, this work will focus primarily upon biblical issues.
The argumentation provided by Dr. Geisler, and other
proponents of a non-Reformed position, fails upon exegetical
examination.

A Necessary Definition
What are the “doctrines of grace,” and why do they matter?
Such is like asking, “What does the Bible teach about the very
heart of the gospel, and does it matter one way or the other?”
The doctrines of grace are the biblical teachings that define the
goal and means of God’s perfect work of redemption. They
tell us that God is the one who saves, for His own glory, and
freely. And they tell us that He does so only through Christ,
only on the basis of His grace, only with the perfection that
marks everything the Father, Son, and Spirit do. The doctrines
of grace separate the Christian faith from the works-based
religions of men. They direct us away from ourselves and
solely to God’s grace and mercy. They destroy pride, instill
humility, and exalt God. And that’s why so many invest so
much time in the vain attempt to undermine their truth. The
religions of men maintain authority over their followers by 1)
limiting God’s power, 2) exalting man’s abilities, and 3)
“channeling” God’s power through their own structures. A
perfect salvation that is freely bestowed by God for His own
glory is not a “system” that can be controlled by a religious
body or group. And even more importantly, such a system is
destructive of any sense of pride in the creature man, and if
there is anything man’s religions must safeguard, it is man’s
“self-esteem.”
In our modern setting the debate is normally framed by the
famous “Five Points of Calvinism.” These have historically
been defined as follows:
T = Total Depravity: Man is dead in sin, completely and
radically impacted by the Fall, the enemy of God, incapable of
saving himself. This does not mean that man is as evil as he
could be. Nor does it mean that the image of God is destroyed,
or that the will is done away with. Instead, it refers to the all
pervasiveness of the effects of sin, and the fact that man is,
outside of Christ, the enemy of God.
U = Unconditional Election: God elects a specific people
unto Himself without reference to anything they do. This
means the basis of God’s choice of the elect is solely within
Himself: His grace, His mercy, His will. It is not man’s
actions, works, or even foreseen faith, that “draws” God’s
choice. God’s election is unconditional and final.
L = Limited Atonement: Since it is God’s purpose to save
a special people for Himself, and He has chosen to do so only
through the perfect sacrifice of Jesus Christ, Christ came to
give His life “a ransom for many” so as to “save His people
from their sins” (Matthew 1:21). The intention of Christ in His
cross-work was to save His people specifically. Therefore,
Christ’s sacrifice is perfect and complete, for it actually
accomplishes perfect redemption.
I = Irresistible Grace: This is the belief that God is able to
raise the spiritually dead sinner to life. This is an act of
efficient grace. When God chooses to bring one of His elect to
spiritual life, it is an act similar to when Jesus raised Lazarus
from the dead: just as Lazarus was incapable of resisting the
power of Christ in raising him from the dead, so too the dead
sinner is incapable of resisting the power of God that raises
him to spiritual life. This is not to say that men have not
resisted God’s grace. This doctrine speaks specifically to the
grace that brings regeneration, not to individual acts of sin
committed by believers or unbelievers.
P = Perseverance of the Saints: Some prefer saying “the
preservation of the saints” to emphasize that this is the work of
God: others use the phrase “eternal security” to emphasize the
impossibility of God’s perfect work of salvation being undone.
But whatever one calls it, it is the belief that when Christ saves
one of His elect, He will not fail to keep that saved person
throughout life and bring them safely into His presence. It is,
in short, the belief that Christ is able to save perfectly.
Historically, the debate goes back long before the
Reformation, however. One can trace the argument back
through the centuries, through men such as Gottschalk of
Orbais, all the way back to Augustine and Pelagius in the fifth
century. But really the issue can be found clearly addressed in
the New Testament itself, so we should not be surprised that it
remains an ever-new issue with each generation that comes
along. Sin causes man to constantly seek to insert himself into
the work of God in salvation, so every generation has to be
reminded of their complete dependence upon Him and of His
perfect freedom.
That is one reason why I do not believe the common “five
points” listed above is enough for today. There is a sixth point,
one that lies at the head of the list, that must be firmly
proclaimed and defended today: the freedom of God. While it
may have been taken for granted a few centuries ago, today it
is surely a belief under fire. But since it lies at the very heart of
the debate, we need to begin with a discussion of what it
means.

The Free and Proper Kingship of God

 I believe one of the reasons modern men struggle with some
of the plain biblical truths of old is because so few of us any
longer have a “king.” Royal power and authority was
fundamental when the Scriptures were written, and often the
power of God to properly rule over His own creation is likened
to the power of a king to rule over his realm. Since most of us
do not bow to a king, we see little reason why we should bow
to God.
The phrase “the free and proper kingship of God” is a rather
verbose means of saying “God’s sovereignty.” So why do I use
the longer phrase? Because it has become “fashionable” to
confess belief in “the sovereignty of God.” How can anyone
read the Bible and not hear its constant testimony to the
unfettered, unlimited, undiminished authority of God to do as
He wishes with His creation? So many are quick to say, “Oh
yes, I believe in the sovereignty of God.” Yet, when pressed to
believe consistently that God truly can do as He pleases
without getting permission from anyone, including man, we
discover that many who in fact confess such a belief in
practice deny it. Just a few passages that testify to this are as
follows:
Whatever the LORD pleases, He does,
In heaven and in earth, in the seas and in all deeps.
(Psalm 135:6)
“For the LORD of hosts has planned, and who can
frustrate it? And as for His stretched-out hand, who
can turn it back?” (Isaiah 14:27)
“Remember the former things long past,
For I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is no one like Me,
Declaring the end from the beginning,
And from ancient times things which have not been
done,
Saying, ‘My purpose will be established,
And I will accomplish all My good pleasure.’”
(Isaiah 46:9-10)
Let all the earth fear the LORD;
Let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of
Him.
For He spoke, and it was done;
He commanded, and it stood fast.
The LORD nullifies the counsel of the nations;
He frustrates the plans of the peoples.
The counsel of the LORD stands forever,
The plans of His heart from generation to generation.
(Psalm 33:8-11)
“Present your case,” the LORD says.
“Bring forward your strong arguments,”
The King of Jacob says.
Let them bring forth and declare to us what is going to
take place;
As for the former events, declare what they were,
That we may consider them and know their outcome.
Or announce to us what is coming;
Declare the things that are going to come afterward,
That we may know that you are gods;
Indeed, do good or evil, that we may anxiously look
about us and fear together.
(Isaiah 41:21-23)
The king’s heart is like channels of water in the hand
of the LORD;
He turns it wherever He wishes.
(Proverbs 21:1)
“But at the end of that period, I, Nebuchadnezzar,
raised my eyes toward heaven and my reason returned
 to me, and I blessed the Most High and praised and
honored Him who lives forever;
For His dominion is an everlasting dominion,
And His kingdom endures from generation to
generation. All the inhabitants of the earth are
accounted as nothing, But He does according to His
will in the host of heaven And among the inhabitants
of earth;
And no one can ward off His hand
Or say to Him, ‘What have You done?’
(Daniel 4:34-35)
The biblical testimony could be expanded almost indefinitely.
God is king over all the earth. As the Creator, it is His to do
with as He chooses. This concept is brought out with striking
clarity in the analogy of the Potter and the clay. A number of
times in Scripture God likens Himself to a Potter and we as
clay or as pots, formed and fashioned as He wishes. This
sovereign power is seen in God’s dealings with Israel. He sent
Jeremiah the prophet to the potter’s house, and recorded this
incident in Jeremiah 18:4-6:
But the vessel that he was making of clay was spoiled
in the hand of the potter; so he remade it into another
vessel, as it pleased the potter to make. Then the word
of the LORD came to me saying, “Can I not, O house
of Israel, deal with you as this potter does?” declares
the LORD. “Behold, like the clay in the potter’s hand,
so are you in My hand, O house of Israel.”
God could refashion and remake Israel as He pleased. He did
not have to ask permission, seek advice, or in any way consult
anyone or anything outside of Himself. The entire nation was
as the clay in the potter’s hand. Clay has no inherent “rights,”
no basis upon which to complain about the potter’s decisions,
no say in what the potter does.
The vast gulf that separates the created from the Creator is
highlighted in these words from Isaiah 29:16 (NIV):
 You turn things upside down, as if the potter were
thought to be like the clay! Shall what is formed say to
him who formed it, “He did not make me”? Can the
pot say of the potter, “He knows nothing”?
The very idea of “what is formed” speaking to the one who
formed it is supposed to strike within us the absurdity of man,
the creature, thinking that God is to be thought of as existing
on the same plane, the same level, as man. Man’s every
thought of God should be marked with reverential awe, with
true fear of the One who formed us and gives us every breath
we take. The sheer stupidity of man arguing with his Maker
comes up yet again a little later in Isaiah 45:9:
“Woe to the one who quarrels with his Maker — An
earthenware vessel among the vessels of earth! Will
the clay say to the potter, ‘What are you doing?’ Or
the thing you are making say, ‘He has no hands’?
Sarcasm and irony are tools the Lord uses to emphasize the
utter foolishness of man arguing with God. “Will the clay say
to the potter, ‘What are you doing?’” Clay by nature is under
the sovereign power of the potter. It is a thing to be formed and
used as the potter desires. In comparison with the potter, the
clay is utterly powerless. There can be no clash of wills
between the Potter and the pots. The Potter’s will is free and
unfettered by any considerations the clay may present. What is
more, the pot is forced to recognize the active involvement of
the potter. This is seen in the argumentum ad absurdum, “Or
the thing you are making say, ‘He has no hands.’” The thing
“being made” cannot deny the very hands that are forming and
fashioning its very shape! And yet this is the very attitude of
man today: there is no Creator, and all evidence of His
existence must be immediately dismissed. And even amongst
those who embrace the Christian faith, there is a hesitance to
confess God as Creator, God as determiner of my shape and
my destiny.
The people of God gladly confess that they are “God’s
pots,” creatures made by His hand. Hear these words:
But now, O LORD, You are our Father,
 We are the clay, and You our potter;
And all of us are the work of Your hand. (Isaiah 64:8)
The renewed heart rejoices in knowing that God is our Father,
our Creator, the Potter who has formed us by His own hand.
But such a thought is utter terror to the unregenerate person,
and completely anathema to the religions of men who seek to
control God and His power through the exercise of man’s will.

The Decrees of the King

The conjunction of God’s absolute freedom and His
Creatorship results in the doctrine of God’s decrees: the soul-
comforting truth that God has wisely and perfectly decreed
whatsoever comes to pass in this universe. Nothing is outside
His control, nothing is without purpose. There are no
“renegade atoms” in the universe, nothing that is beyond the
positive decree of God. This extends not only to inanimate
objects (galaxies, stars, planets, earthquakes, hurricanes,
landslides, etc.) but to every aspect of human history, personal
relationships, and most importantly, to the life of every man,
woman, and child. While many are content to allow God to
control the “big things” like hurricanes and the natural realm,
it is the assertion that God’s freedom extends to the actions of
men, even to their choices, that meets with immediate
rejection. But the Bible is clear on the matter. Three scriptural
witnesses will testify to this truth.
One of the most striking evidences of God’s sovereign
control over the affairs of men is hidden from a cursory
reading of the Scriptures. It is buried in some of the history of
the Old Testament. Think carefully about these words:
Woe to Assyria, the rod of My anger
And the staff in whose hands is My indignation,
I send it against a godless nation
And commission it against the people of My fury
To capture booty and to seize plunder,
 And to trample them down like mud in the streets.
Yet it does not so intend,
Nor does it plan so in its heart,
But rather it is its purpose to destroy
And to cut off many nations.
(Isaiah 10:5-7)
Here God reveals that He is sending Assyria “the rod of His
anger” against His people Israel, a “godless nation.” God is
specifically bringing this ravaging nation against Israel “to
capture booty and to seize plunder, and to trample them down
like mud in the streets.” Obviously, this results in great
suffering and distress among the rebellious Israelites. But, God
is clear: the woe He is announcing is on the very instrument
He is using to punish Israel! Assyria is not a willing party to
the punishment of Israel: they do not intend to be involved in
doing God’s work, “but rather it is its purpose to destroy and
to cut off many nations.” Assyria had one purpose, God
another, and all in the same historical events. While God says
He is using Assyria, He likewise says He will punish them for
their intentions. Note these words:
So it will be that when the Lord has completed all His
work on Mount Zion and on Jerusalem, He will say, “I
will punish the fruit of the arrogant heart of the king of
Assyria and the pomp of his haughtiness.” For he has
said,
“By the power of my hand and by my wisdom I did
this,
For I have understanding;
And I removed the boundaries of the peoples
And plundered their treasures,
And like a mighty man I brought down their
inhabitants, And my hand reached to the riches of the
peoples like a nest,
 And as one gathers abandoned eggs, I gathered all the
earth;
And there was not one that flapped its wing or opened
its beak or chirped.”
Is the axe to boast itself over the one who chops with
it?
Is the saw to exalt itself over the one who wields it?
That would be like a club wielding those who lift it,
Or like a rod lifting him who is not wood.
Therefore the Lord, the GOD of hosts, will send a
wasting disease among his stout warriors;
And under his glory a fire will be kindled like a
burning flame.
And the light of Israel will become a fire and his Holy
One a flame,
And it will burn and devour his thorns and his briars in
a single day.
(Isaiah 10:12-17)
When God completes “His work” in Jerusalem He will punish
the arrogance of the Assyrians. He points out the foolishness
of the Assyrian thinking that he is operating separately from
God’s sovereign decree. This is the essence of the rhetorical
questions concerning the axe, the saw, the club, and the rod: all
instruments in the hand of another. Assyria has one purpose in
heart: but it is God’s purpose that prevails. Yet, God is
perfectly just to judge on the basis of Assyria’s sinful
intentions. Assyria acts in accordance with its desires, and yet,
what is done is the fulfillment of God’s decree.
Joseph knew this truth as well. After the death of Jacob,
Joseph’s brothers were fearful of reprisals due to their
treatment of Joseph years before. As they cowered before their
powerful sibling, Joseph wept, realizing that his brothers still
did not understand how he had forgiven them, nor how God
had worked in the circumstances. So he says to them,
 “Do not be afraid, for am I in God’s place? As for you,
you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good
in order to bring about this present result, to preserve
many people alive. So therefore, do not be afraid; I
will provide for you and your little ones.” So he
comforted them and spoke kindly to them. (Genesis
50:19-21)
These are the words of one who has come to see the sovereign
plan of God in his own life. Joseph well knew the motivations
of his brothers when they sold him into slavery. But, in the
very same event he saw the over-riding hand of God, guiding,
directing, and ultimately meaning in the same action to bring
about good. One might ask, “But, if God decreed that this
event would take place, how can He still hold Joseph’s
brothers personally accountable for their actions?” Even if we
did not have an answer to this question, it would not matter:
God makes it clear that He does hold men accountable. But it
is clear that they are judged on the basis of the intention of
their hearts. We dare not think that Joseph’s brothers were
forced against the desires of their hearts to commit the evil of
selling their brother into slavery. They desired to do this:
indeed, if God had not intervened it is sure they would have
killed him outright, so great was their hatred toward their
brother. But God preserved Joseph’s life, and sent him to
Egypt to preserve life and accomplish His will.
But by far the greatest example of this is found in the
pinnacle of God’s work of redemption, the cross of Jesus
Christ. Surely no one can suggest that the cross was an after-
thought, a desperate attempt to “fix” things after all had gone
awry. Jesus taught His disciples that it was necessary that He
go to Jerusalem and die (Mark 8:31, Luke 9:22). The early
church had the proper understanding of the relationship of
God’s sovereign decree and the evil men showed in the act of
nailing the sinless Son of God to a tree. As they prayed to God
in the face of the persecution of the religious authorities, this
truth came out with striking clarity:
“For truly in this city there were gathered together
against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed,
 both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles
and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Your hand
and Your purpose predestined to occur. And now,
Lord, take note of their threats, and grant that Your
bond-servants may speak Your word with all
confidence, while You extend Your hand to heal, and
signs and wonders take place through the name of
Your holy servant Jesus.” (Acts 4:27-30).
The Church prays to the Sovereign of the universe, the one
who rules and reigns over all authorities, including those who
were persecuting the Church. Just as Herod, and Pontius
Pilate, the Gentiles and even the people of Israel had gathered
against Christ, so too the early Church faced the wrath of the
governing authorities. Yet, these Christians knew something
that many today have forgotten: what took place at Calvary
had been predestined by the sovereign decree of God. No
human being had the power to raise a hand against the Savior
unless God so determined. But again, is it not true that what
Herod and Pilate and the Jews and the Romans did was evil?
Most assuredly. Man had never shown himself more evil than
on Mount Calvary. Yet, what they did was predestined by God,
and that to His glory. No event in history will bring more
glory, honor and praise to God than the atoning sacrifice of
Jesus Christ in the place of His people. Yet again we find one
single act, freely engaged in by evil men for evil motives, yet,
at the same time, eternally predestined for good by God. The
Potter is indeed free. He can, and does, decree whatsoever
comes to pass, for His own glory (Ephesians 1:11). And yet
the Potter is the righteous judge of all the earth who always
does right.

The Vital Conclusion

“Salvation is of the Lord” (Jonah 2:9). The most
fundamental difference between the God-centered Gospel of
the Apostles and of the Reformers and all other viewpoints is
summed up in these few words. Is salvation a work of God
and man, a cooperative effort? Is it something that God “sets
up” like a cosmic multi-level marketing program where we
“work the numbers” and gain eternal life as the final prize? Is
it a grand and beautiful design that simply awaits man’s
turning of the key, so to speak, to work? Is salvation of the
Lord, of men, or a mixture of both?
Salvation is of the Lord. Does this simply mean that the
plan comes from His hand, so that without Him, there would
be no salvation? Is that all it means? The Apostle Paul did not
view it that way:
For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not
many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty,
not many noble; but God has chosen the foolish things
of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen
the weak things of the world to shame the things
which are strong, and the base things of the world and
the despised God has chosen, the things that are not,
so that He may nullify the things that are, so that no
man may boast before God. But by His doing you are
in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God,
and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption,
so that, just as it is written, “LET HIM WHO BOASTS,
BOAST IN THE LORD” (I Corinthians 1:26-31).

No man can boast before God. God has chosen the weak
things, the base things, the foolish things, so that He might
destroy the wisdom of the wise. It is by “His doing” that any
person is in Christ. It is not by His doing and our doing, a
cooperative effort, but by His alone. Now, one might object to
the use of the term “alone,” but the passage bears this out.
Christ has become to us everything we need: wisdom,
righteousness, sanctification and redemption. None of this
comes from ourselves. None of this is dependent upon us. The
result, Paul says, is that if anyone is to boast, he can boast
solely in the Lord.
The Christian heart is glad to confess, “Salvation is of the
Lord.” All of it. In completeness. In perfection. The God who
decrees all things saves perfectly. Salvation is a divine act, a
divine work. It is centered upon God, not upon man. It is
God’s glory, not man’s, that is at stake. The God-centeredness
of the gospel is what makes the biblical teaching so
fundamentally different than all the religions of men.
Many, including Dr. Geisler, speak of the sovereignty of
God. But what do they mean? Dr. Geisler’s position is unusual
—almost unique. Since he claims it is in harmony with a
“moderate Calvinistic” view, we need to understand his
presentation and how it differs from the historic Reformed
position.
Notes
1 13th August 1554, Letters of St. Ignatius of Loyola, p. 345
as cited in Hans Hillerbrand, ed., The Reformation (Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1987), pp. 446-447.
2 Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will, Henry Cole,
trans., (Baker, 1976), p. 390.
3 Ibid., pp.390-391.
4 Martin Luther, On the Bondage of the Will: A New
Translation of De Servo Arbitrio (1525) Martin Luther’s
Reply to Erasmus of Rotterdam, trans. J.I. Packer and O.R.
Johnston (Fleming H. Revell Company, 1957), p. 319.
5 “Divine Sovereignty,” a sermon delivered May 4, 1856.
 Chapter 2

Determinately Knowing

Chosen But Free begins with an affirmation of the sovereignty

of God, for which we can all be thankful. But what does CBF
mean when it speaks of the “sovereignty of God”? Are we in
fact reading about the same emphasis upon the absolute
freedom, power, and will of God that is part of classic
Reformed writings when we read the first chapter of CBF?
One of the most confusing aspects of Dr. Geisler’s
presentation in CBF flows from his rather unique emphasis
upon the idea that we simply can’t ask (or answer) the
question, “Does God’s foreknowledge1 determine what He
decrees or does God’s decree determine what He foreknows?”
While theologians down through the centuries have taken one
side to the exclusion of the other, Dr. Geisler’s presentation2
essentially says that the question should not be asked. I believe
his system does, in fact, end up favoring one side against the
other, but as far as embracing either of the historic sides in this
great theological battle, CBF seeks a different conclusion.
It is vital to understand this concept in Geisler’s theology,
for it is the key to unlocking the problem of his use of
terminology. That is, we can read in CBF of God’s
“sovereignty” yet at the same time read of man’s absolute
freedom.3 How can one affirm both equally? CBF does so by
presenting a unique understanding of what “predetermined” or
“determined” means. But to get a “running start” at
understanding CBF, we can go back a number of years to
previous writings of Dr. Geisler to see his position stated in
even stronger terminology.

Walvoord: A Tribute
 In 1982, Moody Press published a tribute to Dallas
Seminary professor John Walvoord.4 Dr. Geisler wrote an
essay for this work titled “God, Evil and Dispensations”
(pages 95-112). We here begin to pick up the outline of the
position that comes to full expression philosophically in CBF
and that explains the biblical exegesis and theology that is
presented therein. Most importantly, we here encounter the
phrase “determinately foreknew” which becomes central to the
understanding of Geisler’s position:
Finally, since God knows the end from the beginning
(Isa. 46:10), He determinately foreknew (cf. Acts
2:23) that He would bring a greater good out of evil,
namely, the redemption of all who will believe. In
short, what brings glory to God also brings good to
mankind. Good and glory cannot be separated. God is
interested in bringing good to men—the greatest good
possible.5
Throughout Dr. Geisler’s discussions of “determination” one
will find a constant emphasis upon God’s knowledge. We will
see how vital this is below. For now, since God knows, then
He “determinately foreknew.”
God will achieve the greatest number in heaven that
He possibly can. He does not love just some men; He
loves all and will do everything within His loving
power to save all He can….
When the statement is made that God will achieve
the greatest good “possible,” it does not mean the
greatest number of people will be saved that is
logically possible (that would be 100 percent). What is
meant by that statement is that God will save the
greatest number of people that is actually achievable
without violating their free choice. A loving God will
not force anyone against their will to love Him or to
worship Him. Forced love is not love; forced worship
is not worship. Heaven will not be composed of
robots. God is not a kind of “Cosmic B. F. Skinner”
who believes in manipulating people into certain
 behavior patterns which are pleasing to Himself. God
does not, as Skinner wishes, go “beyond freedom and
dignity.” In short, God will not save people at all cost
—not if it is at the cost of their freedom and dignity—
for that would mean at the cost of their humanity. God
will not dehumanize in order to save. To dehumanize
is to de-create, since that is what God created—a
human….God is love, and love works persuasively but
not coercively. Those whom God can lovingly
persuade have been foreordained to eternal life. Those
whom He cannot, are destined in accordance with
their own choice to eternal destruction (2 Thess. 1:7-9,
Rev. 20:11-15).6
Here in brief scope is a summary of what Dr. Geisler will say
in full in CBF: God will save as many as possible, but He will
do so not on the basis of a positive decree of personal election
(i.e., God elects a particular people) but instead will make
salvation available but leave it to man’s “free will.” Geisler’s
concept of “freedom” insists that man, to be man, must be
absolutely free. To violate man’s “freedom” is to
“dehumanize” or “decreate” man, and this cost is too high. It
should be noted that these sentiments are not Calvinistic: no
Calvinist believes God “dehumanizes” when He regenerates;
no Calvinist speaks of God as merely “persuading” the elect,
nor do they speak of God “coercing” the elect (neither term,
logically, can be attached to the concept of regeneration, which
is being raised from spiritual death to spiritual life). These are
Arminian descriptions, not Calvinistic ones.

Four Views
Three years after the publication of the Walvoord tribute
InterVarsity Press released Predestination & Free Will, edited
by David and Randall Basinger. Here John Feinberg, Norman
Geisler, Bruce Reichenbach, and Clark Pinnock contributed
essays which were then reviewed by the other three writers.
The focus is directly on the very issue at hand, that being the
relationship between God’s sovereignty, knowledge, and the
will of man. One will find that this essay is repeated,
sometimes almost verbatim, throughout CBF, so it’s
importance in grasping Geisler’s most recent presentation is
clear.
Fundamentally, Dr. Geisler presents a concept of God’s
predetermination that he asserts is “according to” not
“contrary to” foreknowledge. Here are his words:
Perhaps God’s predetermination is neither based on
his foreknowledge of human free choices nor done in
spite of it. The Scriptures, for example, declare that we
are “chosen according to the foreknowledge of God”
(1 Pet 1:2). That is to say, there is no chronological or
logical priority of election and foreknowledge. As a
simple Being, all of God’s attributes are one with his
indivisible essence. Hence, both foreknowledge and
predetermination are one in God. Thus whatever God
knows, he determines. And whatever he determines,
he knows.7
Right here we run directly into the most problematic element
of Geisler’s paradigm: “there is no chronological or logical
priority of election and foreknowledge.” That means that in his
system one cannot ask the question that has been asked by
generations of theologians before him: it has always been
recognized that God either bases His election and decrees on
what he foresees in the free actions of creatures, or, His decree
and election determines what takes place in time. In the first
scenario, the creatures are by default the sovereigns of the
universe, since their wills and actions are ultimate; God
becomes a mere servant of the creature, reacting rather than
reigning. In the second, God is absolutely free and man, the
creature, acts in accordance with his created nature. But
Geisler (it seems) attempts to chart a different course, in
essence saying that one cannot ask which one gives rise,
logically, to the other.
Geisler bases this assertion on the statement that “all of
God’s attributes are one with his indivisible essence. Hence,
both foreknowledge and predetermination are one in God.” It
is somewhat startling that generations of Christian theologians
could have missed such a simple truth and as a result have
needlessly argued over this issue for centuries. But does the
simplicity of the Being of God necessitate that there really is
no logical relationship between foreknowledge and
predetermination?
It is at this very point that Geisler’s thesis is subject to
devastating criticism. John Feinberg was quite right to
respond:
But, granting God such knowledge does not mean
that he does not know the logical sequence and
relations among the items that he knows. Moreover,
granting that God foreordains all things
simultaneously does not mean that there is no logical
order in what he foreordains. For example, God
always knew that Christ would be born and would also
die. But he also understood that logically (as well as
chronologically) one of those events had to precede
the other. That does not mean that God knew one of
those events before he knew the other. It only means
that in knowing both simultaneously, he knows the
logical and chronological relation between the two
events.8
Indeed, one can point to the fact that God is fully just and fully
merciful. Yet, even these two aspects of God’s character bear a
logical relationship to the other: one cannot define mercy
without logical reference to justice. Hence, the mere assertion
that God’s Being is simple and one does not logically entail
accepting the idea that there is no logical relationship between
God’s act of decreeing, His election, His foreordination, and
his knowledge of future events. We must agree with Feinberg
when he summarizes the question Geisler (and everyone else)
must answer: “does God foreknow because he foreordains or
does he foreordain because he foreknows?”9 The fact is we
will see that Dr. Geisler does take a de facto position on this
topic.
Geisler continues:
 More properly, we should speak of God as knowingly
determining and determinately knowing from all
eternity everything that happens, including all free
acts…. In other words, all aspects of the eternal
purpose of God are equally timeless. For if God is an
eternal and simple Being then his thoughts must be
coordinate and unified.
Whatever he forechooses cannot be based on what
he foreknows. Nor can what he foreknows be based on
what he forechose.10 Both must be simultaneous and
coordinate acts of God. Thus God knowingly
determined and determinately knew from all eternity
everything that would come to pass, including all free
acts. Hence, they are truly free actions, and God
determined they would be such. God then is totally
sovereign in the sense of actually determining what
occurs, and yet humans are completely free and
responsible for what they choose.11
It is very difficult to understand these words, given that they
are based upon the assertion that there is no logical priority of
foreordination to foreknowledge, for they are “one.” But given
that in point of fact there is no reason to accept this assertion,
we are still left with the classical conundrum of how God can
be sovereign over all things on one hand, and man “completely
free” on the other. Using phrases like “determinately knowing”
or “knowingly determining” does not in reality solve the
problem, it only confuses it.
At this point it is good to note that there is a real danger in
misunderstanding the use of the term “predetermined” or just
“determined.” Most people upon reading this term think of a
positive, volitional action on the part of God: i.e., in the sense
of decreeing that something is going happen, such as the
crucifixion of Christ (Acts 4:28) which took place, we are told,
as God’s power and will had decided beforehand. Most people
understand these terms to speak to something active on the
part of God. But we will see this is not Geisler’s meaning.
When he speaks of “knowingly determining,” the active
element is gone. “Determined” here refers to the passive
recognition of the actions of free men, not the sovereign decree
that the action would take place through the instrumentality of
creatures.
In other words, what Geisler means is that God
“determines” what will take place through His perfect
knowledge. It would be like my saying that “I determined the
water in the pool was very cold by putting my toe in the
water.” “Determined” here is passive: I did not make the water
hot or cold, I just passively took in knowledge that it was, in
fact, cold. We could contrast this with my saying, “I installed a
heating system in my pool, and determined the temperature
would stay at 76 degrees.” Here, “determined” is active
because I am actually making the water a particular
temperature. When Geisler speaks of God “determining”
things he is saying that since God has perfect, complete, and
instantaneous knowledge of all events, past, present, and
future, then He determines those actions—but this is solely in
the passive sense. The grand issue of whether God actively
decrees whatsoever comes to pass is, in fact, directly denied.
In this sense, Geisler’s position, despite all the theological
terminology and discussion of sovereignty, is very much the
same as the Arminian who says that God merely looks into the
future and elects on the basis of what He sees. While Geisler
repeats his assertion that one cannot logically determine the
relationship between foreknowledge and predetermination, his
constant emphasis upon the absolute freedom of the creature
betrays the reality of his system. This comes out with clarity in
these words:
This being the case, there is no problem of how an
act can be truly free if God has determined in advance
what will take place. God’s foreknowledge is not
foreordaining anything which will later occur to him.
All of time is present to God’s mind from all eternity.
God does not really foreknow it; he simply knows it in
his eternal presence. Hence, God is not foreordaining
from his vantage point, but simply ordaining what
humans are doing freely. God sees what we are freely
doing. And what he sees, he knows. And what he
knows, he determines. So God determinately knows
 and knowingly determines what we are freely
deciding.12
It is important to follow this closely: God simply “knows” all
of time and the free choices of humans that take place within
time. God is not determining this actively, but passively. And
this comes out in the final sentences: humans are “doing”
things “freely.” God “sees” what they are “freely doing.” What
God sees, He must know, and what He knows, He knows
perfectly. Now here is the key: “And what he knows, he
determines.” Knowing the free actions of men results in his
“determining” those actions: passively, of course, not actively.
This then is the meaning of “knowingly determining” what
humans are “freely deciding.”
What is really being said here needs to be kept in mind: the
decisions or “decreeing” that takes place is done by man. God
perfectly knows what man does, and passively “determines” it
simultaneously as He knows it (in Geisler’s view). But there is
one major problem here: who is actually deciding what takes
place in time? Feinberg saw this in reviewing Geisler’s
position and asked the question this way: “Does the agent act
because of causal factors which decisively incline the will or
does he act without any factors decisively inclining the will?”
In plain language, do men do what they do because God has
decreed all things (including the actions of men) or do men act
autonomously, and God simply has perfect knowledge of the
results? It seems Dr. Geisler’s position leads inevitably to the
latter: that in the final analysis, man is the one that actively,
willfully, freely determines what takes place in the human
realm. God’s “sovereignty,” if we can use the term, is limited
to giving the gift of freedom:
God is the cause of the fact of freedom, and humans
are the cause of the acts of freedom. God made the
agent, but the agents cause the actions. God gives
people power (of free choice), but they exercise it
without coercion. Thus God is responsible for
bestowing freedom, but humans are responsible for
behaving with it. (p. 79)
God’s “responsibility” is limited to giving men freedom:
nowhere in these discussions do we see any emphasis at all
upon God’s freedom. While it is definitional in Geisler’s view
that man be free, it does not seemingly follow that when it
comes to actions in time, it is definitional that God be free as
well.

Open Theism
These issues were again addressed in the context of a
critique of “open theism” in Dr. Geisler’s 1997 Bethany House
Publication, Creating God in the Image of Man? This is most
significant in light of the fact that if anywhere the freedom of
God, His sovereign decree, and His active and free
determination of events in time will be confessed by Dr.
Geisler, it would have to be here. Open theism is specifically
designed to undercut and deny the sovereignty of God and the
idea that He is accomplishing a specific, freely chosen purpose
in this world. While Dr. Geisler identifies it as at least a
“theistic” system, I would assert open theism is fundamentally
incompatible with Christian theism, and is hence opposed to
Christian truth. It is in the context of defining the Christian
position that Dr. Geisler again makes clear his opposition to
the Reformed position and Reformed theology:
In brief, God can know a “must be” through a “may
be” but not a “can’t be.” Therefore, an omniscient
being (God) knows all future contingents as
necessarily true. This he can do because God knows
necessarily that what will be must be. That is, if it will
and God knows it, then what God knows about what
will be must be true. An omniscient mind cannot be
wrong about what it knows. Therefore the statement
“Everything known by God must necessarily be” is
true if it refers to the statement of the truth of God’s
knowledge, but it is false if it refers to the necessity of
the contingent events. This view of God’s
foreknowledge and free will is compatible with both
classical Arminianism and moderate Calvinism.13
This is consistent with what has come before: there is passive
yet perfect knowing of future contingencies but the active
determination of what takes place in time remains within the
purview of the creature, not the Creator. This is confirmed a
little later:
Actually, God knew from eternity who would repent.
And God’s will includes intermediate causes such as
human free choice. So God knows what the
intermediate causes will choose to do. And God’s will
is in accord with his unchangeable knowledge.
Therefore, God’s will never changes, since he wills
what he knows will happen. That is to say, what is
willed by conditional necessity does not violate human
freedom, since what is willed is conditioned on their
freely choosing it. God wills the salvation of men only
conditionally. Therefore, God’s will to salvation does
not violate human free choice; it utilizes it. Both
classical Arminians and moderate Calvinists agree.
Among evangelicals, only extreme Calvinists demur.14
Not only does Dr. Geisler here admit that his view is in
harmony with the Arminian view15 and contradictory to the
historic Reformed position, but he in essence undermines his
own previous assertion that predetermination and
foreknowledge are “one” and indistinguishable by saying that
“what is willed is conditioned on (my emphasis) their freely
choosing it.” It is almost frightening to consider that here
God’s will is said to be “in accord with his unchangeable
knowledge,” and that his will never changes “since he wills
what he knows will happen.” It is vital to see this: men act
freely, autonomously, while God’s will is defined by His
knowledge of what takes place in time. Truly this makes man
the determiner and God the “perfect knower.” Yet, the only
positive, free, active will in all of this is man’s, not God’s. At
its root, this in no way differs from the Arminian viewpoint
that God elects on the basis of what he foresees.

Chosen But Free

 We can now evaluate the presentation in CBF in light of the
consistent teachings of its author over the preceding two
decades. Remembering that Dr. Geisler calls himself a
“moderate Calvinist,” we immediately note that at the most
basic, definitional point of Calvin’s theology, that being the
absolute freedom and sovereignty of God in decreeing
whatsoever comes to pass in time, Geisler is in strong
disagreement. His presentation begins with an affirmation of
the sovereignty of God:
Nothing catches God by surprise. All things come to
pass as He ordained them from all eternity.16
Such language sounds very Calvinistic until one remembers
that “ordained” is not meant in the sense of the positive, all-
encompassing decree of God whereby He accomplishes all of
His (not man’s) holy will. This comes out even when speaking
of “sovereignty.” Note well the words used:
Even those who would eventually be saved were
known by God (1 Peter 1:2) before the foundation of
the world (Eph. 1:4). By His limitless knowledge God
is able to predict the exact course of human history
(Dan. 2, 7), including the names of persons
generations before they were born (cf. Isa. 45:1).17
These words are carefully chosen: those who would
“eventually” be saved are “known” to God (no mention of
God’s ordination or sovereign choice), and God does not
decree the course of human history, but rather predicts it
(flawlessly). If you predict something you do not control it.
God does not need to predict what He has created, for
example: if God is the Creator of time and all the events in
time, then He knows what will take place because He decreed
it, not because He predicts it. Even when speaking of the term
“sovereignty” this element is seen:
Whatever else may be said, God’s sovereignty over
the human will includes His initiating, pursuing,
persuading, and saving grace without which no one
 would ever will to be saved. For “there is no one who
understands, no one who seeks God” (Rom. 3:11).18
Again the words are specific: God initiates, God pursues, God
persuades, God gives saving grace, but, despite it all, the final
decision is man’s, “without which no one would ever will to be
saved.” God wills to save man, but unless man wills to save
himself, he will not be saved. This is thorough-going
Arminianism.
Dr. Geisler turns to the main issue under the title of
“Sovereignty and Responsibility.”
No one has ever demonstrated a contradiction
between predestination and free choice. There is no
irresolvable conflict between an event being
predetermined by an all-knowing God and it also
being freely chosen by us.19
When one realizes that “predetermined” means simply
“perfectly known but not decreed” this position makes sense:
one must simply sacrifice the meaning of “predestined” and
the rest falls into place. Note again the conjunction of the
phrase “all-knowing” with the term “predetermined.” This
equation of “knowledge results in passive determination” is
laid out explicitly as Dr. Geisler presents an example of his
theory:
(2) Whatever God foreknows must come to pass
(i.e., is determined).20
What God “foreknows” (not decrees) must come to pass (since
God’s knowledge is perfect); this is here explicitly equated
with “determination.” For Geisler, to say that God
“determines” something means that God knows it will happen,
not that He positively, actively decrees that it should take
place. This is fully consistent with what we saw in earlier
publications. This concept continues:
(4) Therefore, it had to come to pass (i.e., was
determined) that Judas would betray Christ.
 The logic is flawless. If God has an infallible
knowledge of future free acts, then the future is
completely determined. But what does not follow
from this is that
(5a) Judas was not free to betray (or not to betray)
Christ.
This is because there is no contradiction in claiming
that God knew for sure (i.e., predetermined) that Judas
would freely (i.e., with free choice) betray Christ.21
What then, ultimately, is the force that determines such events
as this? Is it God’s active and sovereign will, or the free action
of man known perfectly, yet passively by God in His
“foreknowledge”? The answer is clear: in this system, man
determines the shape and form of actions in time, and God
passively “determines” that it should be so.
Therefore, if God has infallible foreknowledge of the
future, including our free acts, then everything that
will happen in the future is predetermined, even our
free acts. This does not mean these actions are not
free; it simply means that God knew how we were
going to use our freedom—and that He knew it for
sure.22
Therefore, to be “determined” means only to be “known
certainly,” so that the ultimate “free will” in the events of man
is man, not God. Man acts freely, God knows those actions
perfectly, and hence “determines” them. No decree, no active
sovereignty, no “free will” of God accomplishing His desire.
That is why Geisler can say there is no contradiction in saying
Jesus’ death on the cross was “predetermined from God’s
standpoint and free from Jesus’ perspective. It is determined in
the one sense that God foresaw it. Yet it is also true in another
sense that Jesus freely chose it.”23
The majority of the specific argumentation regarding
Geisler’s unique view of God “determinately knowing” is
found in his definition of the view of “moderate Calvinism” on
pages 52-54. Most of this material appeared in the previous
publications we have already examined. By now, however, we
should be able to understand exactly what CBF is
communicating here:
Hence, both foreknowledge and predetermination are
one in God. Whatever God knows, He determines.
And whatever He determines, He knows.
More properly, we should speak of God as knowingly
determining and determinately knowing from all
eternity everything that happens, including all free
acts. For if God is an eternal and simple Being, then
His thoughts must be eternally coordinate and unified.
According to the moderate Calvinist’s view,
whatever God forechooses cannot be based on what
He foreknows. Nor can what He foreknows be based
on what He forechose. Both must be simultaneous,
eternal, and coordinate acts of God. Thus, our actions
are truly free, and God determined that they would be
such. God is totally sovereign in the sense of actually
determining what occurs, and yet man is completely
free and responsible for what he chooses.24
God’s sovereignty is here limited to the “sense” in which He
“determines” (passively, as we have seen) what takes place:
the only reference to a freely acting agent is to man.
Likewise, the extreme view of God predetermining
things in spite of (or without regard to) His
foreknowledge is not plausible. For God’s
foreknowledge and his foredetermination cannot be
separated. God is one simple (indivisible) Being. In
Him knowledge and foredetermination are identical.
Hence, He had to predetermine in accordance with His
foreknowledge. And He must have foreknown in
accordance with His predetermination.25
We saw this assertion in Dr. Geisler’s 1985 work, and have
already noted that this assertion is without basis and is in error.
Knowledge and foredetermination are not identical, and, we
submit, if they are, and we cannot discuss the logical
relationship between what God decrees and what God knows,
then it follows that God is truly enslaved to the free choices of
men, and the creature, in fact, becomes the determiner of the
course of all things in human history.
While the preceding citations are certainly enough to
establish the position, we should avail ourselves of another
source in CBF to confirm our conclusions, that being Geisler’s
attack upon the view of what he calls “extreme Calvinism”
(i.e., the Reformed position). You often say more about your
own position when you criticize someone else’s, and that is the
case here. In responding to “extreme Calvinism,” Geisler
defines the position in these words:
According to this view, God’s predetermination is
done in spite of His foreknowledge of human free acts.
God operates with such unapproachable sovereignty
that His choices are made with total disregard for the
choices of mortal men.26
There are two problems here: first, it assumes the
philosophical meaning of “foreknowledge” rather than the
biblical meaning.27 And while using this meaning it is said
that God’s “predetermination” (we assume here that this would
be the “normal” meaning in everyday language of the term
“predetermination,” since this is speaking now of Reformed
theology) is done in spite of this foreknowledge. To be
accurate, however, the proper description would be
“independent of” merely knowing future events, or, even
better, independent of anything other than His own sovereign
and perfect will and purpose. God acts with complete freedom
in all things. His is the only truly “free will” in the universe,
since He is the Creator. God does not act “in spite of”
knowledge He has of the universe: the knowledge He has of
the universe is due to the fact that He created it. Secondly,
God does not act with “total disregard” of the choices of His
creatures: His actions determine the free choices of His
creatures. Dr. Geisler denies that an actively determined action
can be “free,” but in reality, Reformed theologians insist that
for one to be free as a creature then one must have first and
foremost a sovereign Creator. God is the free and sovereign
Creator and acts freely in that realm that is His: we are mere
creatures, never sovereign, never autonomous (i.e., without
law, without a superior authority), but responsible within the
realm of our createdness. Despite all this, there is one truth
presented here: the Reformed position plainly asserts that God
“does according to His will in the host of heaven and among
the inhabitants of earth” (Daniel 4:35) and He does so solely
on the basis of His own desire and decree, never on the basis
of anything outside of Himself. As the 1689 Baptist
Confession states,
God hath decreed in himself, from all eternity, by the
most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and
unchangeably, all things, whatsoever comes to pass”
(Chapter 3, “Of God’s Decree”).
CBF then provides this interesting insight:
There is an important corollary to this view. If free
choices were not considered at all when God made the
list of the elect, then irresistible grace on the unwilling
follows. That is, man would have no say in his own
salvation. Accordingly, the fact that all men do not
choose to love, worship, and serve God will make no
difference whatsoever to God. He will simply
“doublewhammy” those He chooses with His
irresistible power and force them into His kingdom
against their will.28
The first thing that strikes the reader is that this criticism
begins with a fundamental denial of the assertion that God’s
“foreknowledge” and “predetermination” are “one.” There is a
plain priority in CBF’s presentation to the “free choices” of
men which then influences (indeed, determines) the making of
the “list of the elect.” Obviously, this indicates a priority of the
free choices of men: the “list of the elect” seemingly is made
up of those who vote for themselves. Again, God is not
presented as the free and sovereign elector, but the one who
responds to the “free choices” of men, even in the making of
the “list of the elect”!
 Next, CBF constantly insists the Reformed position teaches
“irresistible grace on the unwilling.” As we will note later, this
is straw-man argumentation, for it ignores the fact that
Reformed theologians believe fallen man to be dead in sin, an
enemy of God, in need of spiritual resurrection and a new
heart (Ezekiel 36:26). Briefly, there is no more “force”
exercised in God’s wondrous act of regeneration than was
exhibited when the Lord Jesus cried out, “Lazarus, come
forth!” (John 11:43). Resurrection is not an action of force
against will: it is the bringing of new life to the dead. And that
is what Reformed people believe. To call that wondrous act a
“doublewhammy” that “forces” people into the kingdom
“against their will” is to simply miss the point—completely.
R.C. Sproul has rightly pointed out that the Reformed view is
simply the Augustinian view, and that this view is often badly
misrepresented:
Augustine’s view is frequently said to be that God
saves people who are unwilling to be saved, or that his
grace operates against their wills, forcing them to
choose and bringing them into the kingdom “kicking
and screaming against their will.” This is a gross
distortion of Augustine’s view. The grace of God
operates on the heart in such a way as to make the
formerly unwilling sinner willing. The redeemed
person chooses Christ because he wants to choose
Christ. The person now wills Christ because God has
created a new spirit within the person. God makes the
will righteous by removing the hardness of the heart
and converting an opposing will. “…if God were not
able to remove from the human heart even its
obstinacy and hardness,” Augustine writes, “He would
not say, through the prophet, ‘I will take from them
their heart of stone, and will give them a heart of
flesh’ ” [Ezek. 11:19].29
Finally, one more quotation from CBF should conclude the
examination. In defending his concept of man acting in such a
way as to be “self-determining,” Dr. Geisler writes:
 The answer lies in the fact that God knows—for sure
—(infallibly) precisely how everyone will use his
freedom. So, from the vantage point of His
omniscience, the act is totally determined. Yet from
the standpoint of our freedom it is not determined.
God knows for sure what we will freely do. …This is
not to deny that God uses persuasive means to
convince us to choose in the way that He desires. It is
only to deny that God ever uses coercive means to do
so.30
Persuasion versus coercion. Gently wooing the free creature,
or forcing the free creature against its will. No middle ground
is offered, though, of course, such a middle ground exists in
Reformed theology, a middle ground that is based not upon the
freedom of creatures, but the freedom of the Creator.

A Flawed Foundation
CBF operates on the assertion that God’s knowledge and
God’s predetermination (taken passively) are identical, and
that in reality there is no positive, active, sovereign decree of
God that gives form and shape to time and history. This
viewpoint plays upon the term “determination” and the
possibility of taking the word actively or passively. God’s
“determination” of events becomes passive, yet, despite this,
the author connects this passive determination of events in
time with the term “sovereignty” which truly admits of no
such “passive” concept. The result is a tremendously
confusing presentation that seems to promote both the idea that
God is absolutely sovereign and man is absolutely free. But in
reality, the position presents a God who is limited to having a
perfect knowledge of free events; the extent of His sovereign
actions is in granting freedom: He does not control what His
creatures do with that freedom, but only knows the results
perfectly. This system is driven primarily by philosophical
concerns, not by biblical exegesis, as we shall see when we
examine the biblical argumentation presented in CBF. Charles
Hodge expressed it well:
 Who would wish to see the reins of universal empire
fall from the hands of infinite wisdom and love, to be
seized by chance or fate? Who would not rather be
governed by a Father than by a tornado? If God cannot
effectually control the acts of free agents there can be
no prophecy, no prayer, no thanksgiving, no promises,
no security of salvation, no certainty whether in the
end God or Satan is to be triumphant, whether heaven
or hell is to be the consummation. Give us certainty—
the secure conviction that a sparrow cannot fall, or a
sinner move a finger, but as God permits and ordains.
We must have either God or Satan to rule. And if God
has a providence He must be able to render the free
acts of his creatures certain; and therefore certainty
must be consistent with liberty.31
This is the view that then logically gives rise to a rejection
of every element of the Reformed faith.32 It should be noted
that this is not a Calvinistic view of God’s absolute freedom
and sovereignty. This is not a view that could be called
moderately Calvinistic, weakly Calvinistic, or even remotely
Calvinistic. And if one rejects the Reformed view at its root, it
should not be surprising that the rest of the system likewise
suffers at Dr. Geisler’s hands. One is not a Potter who has no
role in determining the shape, function, and destiny of the
pots.
Notes
1 We do not here speak of foreknowledge in the sense of the
verbal concept “to foreknow,” which in the Bible is not a
matter of merely knowing future facts, but of personally
entering into relationship with someone. See the
discussion in chapter seven.
2 Geisler laid out his view most fully in Basinger &
Basinger, 61-88; major elements of this essay appear in
various parts of CBF.
3 Conspicuously absent is the emphasis upon the absolute
freedom of God.
4 Donald Campbell, ed., Walvoord: A Tribute (Moody Press,
1982).
5 Ibid., p. 102.
6 Ibid., pp. 102-103.
7 Basinger & Basinger, p. 70.
8 Ibid., p. 86.
9 Ibid., p. 88.
10 This is a particularly troubling statement, for if God’s
knowledge of future events is not based upon his sovereign
decree, then the events that take place in time find their
origin and source in something other than God’s infinitely
wise will.
11 Ibid., pp. 70-71.
12 Ibid., p. 73.
13 Norman Geisler, Creating God in the Image of Man?
(Bethany House Publishers, 1997), p. 38.
14 Ibid., p. 43.
15 See the discussion of his use of “moderate Calvinist” in the
Introduction and throughout this work. Note as well the
 direct assertion that God’s election is conditional: a direct
denial of the Reformed belief in unconditional election.
Geisler will, in CBF, attempt to present a new definition of
“unconditional election” so that his denial of it can adopt
the same name.
16 Geisler, Chosen But Free, p. 15.
17 Ibid., p. 13.
18 Ibid., p. 18.
19 Ibid. p. 42.
20 Ibid., p. 43
21 Ibid.
22 Ibid., p. 45.
23 Ibid., p. 46.
24 Ibid., pp. 52-53.
25 Ibid., p. 54.
26 Ibid, pp. 46-47.
27 That is, the Greek term πρóλνωσις is used in Scripture
regarding God’s gracious choice to enter into relationship
with His people. See the discussion in chapter 7 and in
God’s Sovereign Grace, pp. 117-122.
28 Ibid., p. 47
29 R.C. Sproul, Willing to Believe, 1997, pp. 65-66.
30 CBF, p. 178.
31 Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, II:301-302.
32 The sole exception being the perseverance of the saints,
though, even here, the basis of that perseverance is
substantially different.
 Chapter 3

The Inabilities of Man

Charles Haddon Spurgeon once said, “As the salt flavors every
drop in the Atlantic, so does sin affect every atom of our
nature. It is so sadly there, so abundantly there, that if you
cannot detect it, you are deceived.”1 The great works of
Christians down through the centuries are filled with the same
testimony: man is the slave of sin, utterly undone outside of
Christ. Even those whose theology did not measure up to the
biblical standard could not help, in their prayers, to confess
what they knew to be true: the fallen sons of Adam are dead in
sin, incapable of even the first move toward God. Even more,
they are filled with the effect of depravity and alienation from
God: enmity and hatred toward His holy standards. This was a
common element of Spurgeon’s preaching:
Now, the calling of the Holy Spirit is without any
regard to any merit in us. If this day the Holy Spirit
shall call out of this congregation a hundred men, and
bring them out of their estate of sin into a state of
righteousness, you shall bring these hundred men, and
let them march in review, and if you could read their
hearts, you would be compelled to say, “I see no
reason why the Spirit of God should have operated
upon these. I see nothing whatever that could have
merited such grace as this—nothing that could have
caused the operations and motions of the Spirit to
work in these men.” For, look ye here. By nature, men
are said to be dead in sin. If the Holy Spirit quickens,
it cannot be because of any power in the dead men, or
any merit in them, for they are dead, corrupt and
rotten in the grave of their sin. If then, the Holy Spirit
says, “Come forth and live,” it is not because of
anything in the dry bones, it must be for some reason
 in His own mind, but not in us. Therefore, know ye
this, men and brethren, that we all stand upon a level.
We have none of us anything that can recommend us
to God; and if the Spirit shall choose to operate in our
hearts unto salvation, He must be moved to do it by
His own supreme love, for He cannot be moved to do
it by any good will, good desire, or good deed, that
dwells in us by nature.2
The “flip-side” of divine freedom is the fact that man, the great
image-bearer of God, is a fallen creature, a slave to sin,
spiritually dead, incapable of doing what is pleasing to God.
Just as the great freedom of the Potter offends rebellious pots,
so too does the Bible’s teaching on the inabilities of man due
to sin. The fallen sons and daughters of Adam are most adept
at finding ways to promote creaturely freedom at the cost of
God’s freedom, while at the same time promoting the
servitude of God to the whims and will of man. It would be
humorous if it were not so serious: the pots gathering together
and assuring each other that the Potter either doesn’t exist, or,
at worst, will sit idly by while they take control and “run the
show” themselves. Yet this is the impact of sin upon the
thinking of man. Man suppresses the truth of his createdness
and invariably attempts to find a means to “control” God. One
wisely put it this way:
Again, it is certain that man never achieves a clear
knowledge of himself unless he has first looked upon
God’s face, and then descends from contemplating
him to scrutinize himself….So it happens in
estimating our spiritual goods. As long as we do not
look beyond the earth, being quite content with our
own righteousness, wisdom, and virtue, we flatter
ourselves most sweetly, and fancy ourselves all but
demigods. Suppose we but once begin to raise our
thoughts to God, and to ponder his nature, and how
completely perfect are his righteousness, wisdom, and
power—the straightedge to which we must be shaped.
Then, what masquerading earlier as righteousness was
pleasing in us will soon grow filthy in its consummate
wickedness. What wonderfully impressed us under the
 name of wisdom will stink in its very foolishness.
What wore the face of power will prove itself the most
miserable weakness. That is, what in us seems
perfection itself corresponds ill to the purity of God.3
Truly recognizing one’s spiritual state is a gift of grace.
Outside of God opening the eyes of the heart man thinks
himself wonderfully pure, or at least acceptable in God’s sight.
That is why the unregenerate person cannot understand the
urgency of the gospel message: until they see the depth of their
sin and the holiness of God, they find no reason to seek
remedy for their condition.
Man’s religions consistently promote the myth of man’s
autonomy: his absolute freedom to act outside of any eternal
decree of God. “Man is the master of his destiny” seems to be
the watchword of the religions of men, and even of many in
Christendom today. How many times have you heard a
preacher say, “In the matter of election, God has cast his vote
for you, Satan has cast his against you, and now the final vote
is up to you”? Such an assertion not only makes man’s choice
equal with God’s, but it likewise places the final decision for
what takes place in time squarely in the hands of man, not of
God.

A Definition
What do Reformed Christians believe concerning the will of
man? The reader of CBF would have to conclude that true
Calvinists believe man’s will is “destroyed” and done away
with, resulting in nothing more than an automaton, a robot.
But this is not the case at all. Chapter 9 of the London Baptist
Confession (1689)4 is succinct and clear:

1 In the natural order God has endued man’s will with

liberty and the power to act upon choice, so that it is
neither forced from without, nor by any necessity arising
from within itself, compelled to do good or evil.
 2 In his state of innocency man had freedom and power to
will and to do what was good and acceptable to God. Yet,
being unstable, it was possible for him to fall from his
uprightness.
3 As the consequence of his fall into a state of sin, man has
lost all ability to will the performance of any of those
works, spiritually good, that accompany salvation. As a
natural (unspiritual) man he is dead in sin and altogether
opposed to that which is good. Hence he is not able, by
any strength of his own, to turn himself to God, or even
to prepare himself to turn to God.
4 When God converts a sinner, and brings him out of sin
into the state of grace, He frees him from his natural
bondage to sin and, by His grace alone, He enables Him
freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good.
Nevertheless certain corruptions remain in the sinner, so
that his will is never completely and perfectly held in
captivity to that which is good, but it also entertains evil.5
5 It is not until man enters the state of glory that he is made
perfectly and immutably free to will that which is good,
and that alone.
The final section especially should be noted: when in heaven
the ultimate “freedom” will not be “freedom to choose evil or
good as we may desire” but “freedom from the presence of,
and inclination toward, evil.” Any person who believes that
the redeemed in heaven will be forever perfected must
likewise believe that they will no longer commit sin. Does this
mean that they will somehow be less than human? Or is
freedom to perfectly will good a greater freedom than the
ability to choose between good and evil?

The Scriptural Witness

The biblical doctrine of total depravity combines the truth of
man’s createdness (the pot that is formed by the Potter) with
the truth of man as sinner. The result is a view of man that is
pre-eminently biblical and perfectly in line with what we see
in mankind all around us.
To say something is a biblical doctrine requires that we
demonstrate this from the text. Briefly, here are a few of the
more important passages teaching the Reformed doctrine of
the total depravity of man and the bondage of man in sin.
From the earliest records of the Bible, we see that man’s
corruption extends to his very heart:
Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was
great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts
of his heart was only evil continually. (Genesis 6:5)
This corruption is internal and complete: every intent of the
thoughts of man’s heart was only evil continually. This is
radical corruption, not mere “sickness.” Such a person is not
“spiritually challenged” but is in firm and resolute rebellion
against God. The flood took these people away, yet, even after
the flood, God says:
The LORD smelled the soothing aroma; and the LORD
said to Himself, “I will never again curse the ground
on account of man, for the intent of man’s heart is evil
from his youth; and I will never again destroy every
living thing, as I have done.” (Genesis 8:21)
Man’s radical corruption has not changed: from his youth
man’s heart is evil, not just once in a while, but continually.
Can good come forth from an evil heart? Men like to think so.
Yet, the Bible says otherwise:
Can the Ethiopian change his skin
Or the leopard his spots?
Then you also can do good
Who are accustomed to doing evil.
(Jeremiah 13:23)
Just as a person cannot change the color of their skin, or the
leopard its spots, so the one who practices evil cannot break
the bondage of sin and start doing good. The corruption is
indelible and can only be removed by a radical change of the
heart. Surely this is not the belief of most of mankind: films,
books, and the mass media is constantly telling us that there is
a “spark of good” in the heart of man that is just begging to be
fanned into a flame. So pervasive is this belief that many in the
Christian faith have drunk deeply at this well of humanism and
have allowed society, rather than Scripture, to determine their
view of man. But the consistent testimony of the Word is
beyond question:
The heart is more deceitful than all else
And is desperately sick;
Who can understand it?
(Jeremiah 17:9)
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
And in sin my mother conceived me.
(Psalm 51:5)
The wicked are estranged from the womb;
These who speak lies go astray from birth.
(Psalm 58:3)
It is incredible to find Christians saying, “Well, that refers to
only some people. See, it says ‘these who speak lies go astray
from birth.’” Is there any person who truly knows their own
heart who does not confess that they lie regularly, if not in
word, then in their heart, even to God? Who does not lie?
Someone might say, “But it says ‘the wicked are estranged
from the womb,’ not everyone.” But does not every Christian
confess that we were once “children of wrath” even as the rest
(Ephesians 2:3)? The true believer knows well the corruption
from which Christ has rescued us.
The New Testament continues the testimony to the radical
depravity of man. In fact, when Paul seeks to present a
systematic argument for the gospel to the Romans, he does not
begin with “Jesus loves you” or “God has a wonderful plan for
your life.” Showing that he would fail almost every
evangelism class currently offered in seminaries in our land,
Paul begins with a dreadfully long discussion of the universal
sinfulness of man. Without a single poem, no funny
illustrations or multimedia aids, the inspired Apostle drags on
about the sinfulness of men, Jew and Gentile alike. It is no
wonder this section is so little preached in our day. But might
it just be that the good news cannot be properly understood
unless the bad news is fully realized? Such would seem to be
the case.
A biblical view of man must find a large portion of its
substance in the words of Paul in Romans 1 and 3. Hear again
these words penned by the Spirit of God:
For even though they knew God, they did not honor
Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in
their speculations, and their foolish heart was
darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools,
and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for
an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds
and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their
hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be
dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth
of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the
creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed
forever. Amen. (Romans 1:21-25)
Man, the image-bearer of God, knows God exists. There is no
honest atheist. Man suppresses that knowledge (Romans 1:18)
and twists his irrepressible religiosity into the horror that is
idolatry. We can find men bowing down and worshiping every
single element of the created world, from the most obvious
forms of idolatry such as the worship of animals, the sun,
moon, and stars, to the more subtle but no less horrific forms
where men worship pleasures, possessions, and most often,
themselves (humanism). It is the very essence of sin to twist
the proper relationship of God as Creator and man as creation.
When man usurps any of the authority of God he is, in so
doing, giving loud testimony to the radical depravity that grips
every fallen child of Adam. But Paul goes on to compile a list
of testimonies from the ancient Scriptures to seal his case:
As it is written,
“There is none righteous, not even one;
There is none who understands,
There is none who seeks for god;
All have turned aside,
Together they have become useless;
There is none who does good,
There is not even one.
Their throat is an open grave,
With their tongues they keep deceiving,
The poison of asps is under their lips;
Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness;
Their feet are swift to shed blood,
Destruction and misery are in their paths,
And the path of peace they have not known.
There is no fear of god before their eyes.”
(Romans 3:10-18)
This litany of quotations is specifically designed to have one
effect: to shatter, destroy, and obliterate any last shred of self-
righteousness that might remain after the preceding arguments
have been understood. These testimonies are fatal to any kind
of “optimistic humanism.” Outside of God’s grace, man is a
corrupted creation, violent, hateful, without understanding,
without fear of God. Rather than finding in man “seekers” who
simply need a “nudge” in the right direction, Scripture tells us
that man does not understand and does not seek after God.
Man is deceitful, even with himself, and is quick to curse God.
Total depravity painted in the most vivid colors.
Dead in Sin
Scripture teaches that men are spiritually dead and in need
of new life. Paul taught that this was the universal condition of
mankind, for he said that all Christians, prior to being born
anew, were dead in their sins:
And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in
which you formerly walked according to the course of
this world, according to the prince of the power of the
air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of
disobedience. (Ephesians 2:1-2)
When you were dead in your transgressions and the
uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive
together with Him, having forgiven us all our
transgressions, (Colossians 2:13)
The contrast between spiritual death before Christ and
resurrection life in Him reveals to us the depth of the meaning
of “dead in sins.” The one who is spiritually dead is separated
from the only source of true life: the Creator. Spiritual death is
the result of the fall of Adam, and one who is spiritually dead
cannot pass on to his descendants a life that he himself does
not possess. All in Adam then are born in this state of spiritual
death, while all who are in Christ share His life.
When the Scriptures say that men are spiritually dead, we
are not to understand this to mean that they are spiritually
inactive. Men are active in their rebellion, active in their
suppression of the truth, active in their sin. Instead, spiritual
death refers to alienation from God, the destruction of the
positive, active desire to do what is right in God’s sight, and
most importantly, the ability to do what is good and holy. It is
this last assertion that is so often denied, though the Scriptural
testimony is strong and unequivocal:
For those who are according to the flesh set their
minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are
according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For the
mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the
Spirit is life and peace, because the mind set on the
 flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject
itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so,
and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
(Romans 8:6-8)
The fleshly (unregenerate) mind is hostile toward God (never
neutral), for it does not subject itself to the law of God. But it
is the assertion that follows this that causes so many to
stumble: the fleshly mind “is not able.” Subjection to God’s
law is outside the capacity of the fallen man. Since we know
that God’s law commands us to repent and believe as well as
to perform that which is righteous in God’s sight, we can see
the tremendous extent of the corruption of human nature and
the resultant spiritual inabilities.
We must understand the Scriptural argument at this point.
Those who promote the theory of “free will” normally mean
this in the sense of creaturely autonomy. The idea is that man,
even in sin, is in reality at a neutral point where he is still free
to will good or evil, all depending on his own desires and
choice. The idea that man’s will is controlled by his nature,
and that man’s fallen nature is enslaved to sin because it is
corrupted, is denied. Yet this is exactly what Paul teaches in
this passage. It is specifically, biblically set forth that the
unregenerate, fleshly mind is not capable of doing what is
right in God’s sight. The lost man cannot please God. Is
repentance and faith pleasing to God? Yes. Is submission to
the commands of God pleasing to Him? Of course. Therefore,
regeneration must take place first.
This truth came out in glowing colors when Jesus was faced
with an entire crowd of would-be disciples who refused to
accept the centrality of His own person to God’s work of
salvation. Upon miraculously feeding the five thousand on the
previous day, Jesus is followed by an entire group of people
very excited about His supernatural powers and abilities. He
purposefully separates Himself from them, rejecting their
attempt to make Him a king. The next day they find Him in
the synagogue in Capernaum. Christ exposes their true
motivations for following Him by refusing to pander to their
“felt needs” and instead points them to the only source of life:
Himself, the Bread of Life. Unregenerate men are offended
when they are told they are helpless and utterly reliant upon
another for salvation (as we will see again below in John 8).
They begin to grumble, especially when Christ explains their
unbelief in terms of God’s sovereignty. The Lord Jesus
explains their faithlessness in blunt terms:
Jesus answered and said to them, “Do not grumble
among yourselves. No one can come to Me unless the
Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up
on the last day.” (John 6:43-44)
While modern evangelicals normally seek reasons for rejection
of Christ in psychology, upbringing, background, or in the
failure of the “presentation,” Jesus goes beyond the creaturely
and touches upon the eternal reality. Again we find man’s
inabilities put in the forefront in contrast with God’s ability.
Why do these stand before the incarnate Lord in disbelief?
Because they are not able, in and of themselves, to come to the
very Bread of Life. “No one can come to Me” Christ says.
These are not words to be glossed over. Non-Reformed
Protestants simply cannot explain Jesus’ meaning. The
religions of men, Roman Catholicism, and Arminianism, all
share one thing in common: the deep desire to maintain the
ability of man to control the work of God in salvation and
always have the “final say.” The blunt assertion of Christ
refutes this error. The fact is, outside of the divine action of
drawing the elect to Christ none would come to Him. It is
beyond the capacity of the fallen man.
Normally this assertion is “softened” by saying, “Yes,
without God first moving toward us, we would never be able
to move toward Him.” But this is not the teaching of the Lord.
The emphasis is on the inability of man to do something
outside of the action of the Father. Christ, and His message, is
not “naturally attractive” to the unregenerate person. In fact, it
is foolishness and those who proclaim it a “smell of death” (2
Corinthians 2:16). Something has to change the person who is
naturally the enemy of God into one who desires to follow
Christ. That “something” is the “drawing” of the Father.
 Many are willing to go this far and say that yes indeed, we
must be drawn. But they will then say “but God draws all
men.” Is this what Jesus says? Such an assertion turns the text
on its head. The Lord is explaining the disbelief of the crowds.
If all are drawn, and that equally, why are these men not being
drawn? No, an often missed truth of the passage is this: all
who are drawn are also raised up. “And I will raise him (the
one who is drawn by the Father to the Son) up on the last day”
is the Lord’s promise. So, if every individual is drawn, then
every individual is raised up. Universalists adopt just this
theology. Evangelicals do not. Dr. Geisler does not address the
assertion of inability that is so plainly presented here. We will
address his denial that the “drawing” spoken of in John 6:44 is
the same as the “irresistible grace” of the Reformed faith in a
later chapter.
Another analogy used by the Lord to describe the state of
man in sin is that of slavery. In the eighth chapter of John the
Lord addresses Jews who “had believed” in Him. John does
not use the normal terms he uses for true believers, but instead
indicates that the kind of faith these men had was a surface
level, one-time faith, not the on-going, saving faith seen
throughout the Gospel of John. To these would-be disciples
Jesus says,
So Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed
Him, “If you continue in My word, then you are truly
disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the
truth will make you free.” They answered Him, “We
are Abraham’s descendants and have never yet been
enslaved to anyone; how is it that You say, ‘You will
become free’?” Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I
say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of
sin.” (John 8:31-34)
These “disciples” are offended by a truth that every true child
of God knows so well: we were once slaves to sin, but Christ,
our Master and Redeemer, has freed us. These surface-level
seekers after miracles did not understand their desperate need,
their helpless estate. And so they assert their creaturely
freedom. Of course, as Jews, they had in fact been under the
control of Rome for many decades, so their response was
patently false. But Christ was not speaking of slavery to
Rome. He was speaking of slavery to sin. The person who
does not realize the power of sin is a person who does not yet
realize the need for a Liberator, a Savior.
The one who commits sin is the slave of sin. Slavery is
servitude, not freedom. Christ’s words tell us that sin is a
taskmaster, we the servants. We do not rule over it. It rules
those who are under its power. Slavery is antithetical to “free
will.” Man in sin is not free to do what is good.
It is utterly amazing, then, to read the words of Dr. Geisler
who writes, “We are born with a bent to sin, but we still have a
choice whether we will be its slave.”6 How can this be when
the Lord teaches that sin brings slavery? What kind of
“choice” is left to the slave concerning his servitude?
The testimony of Scripture is clear: the fallen sons and
daughters of Adam are in need of a Savior to free them from
the bonds of sin and raise them to spiritual life. The radical
corruption of the heart of man is explicitly asserted and
implicitly proven throughout Scripture. To conclude our
survey let us hear again the words of Spurgeon:
What a vain pretense it is to profess to honor God by
a doctrine that makes salvation depend on the will of
man! If it were true, you might say to God, “We thank
thee, O Lord, for what thou hast done; thou hast given
us a great many things, and we offer thee thy meed of
praise, which is justly due to thy name; but we think
we deserve more, for the deciding point was in our
free will.” Beloved, do not any of you swerve from the
free grace of God, for the babblings about man’s free
agency are neither more nor less than lies, right
contrary to the truth of Christ, and the teachings of the
Spirit.
How certain, then, is the salvation of every elect
soul! It does not depend on the will of man; he is
“made willing” in the day of God’s power. He shall be
called at the set time, and his heart shall be effectually
 changed, that he may become a trophy of the
Redeemer’s power. That he was unwilling before, is
no hindrance; for God giveth him the will, so that he is
then of a willing mind. Thus, every heir of heaven
must be saved, because the Spirit is put within him,
and thereby his disposition and affections are molded
according to the will of God.7
But, man—even religious man—does not wish to be reminded
of his true condition. And so we now respond to the attempts
to promote the myth of man’s free will and creaturely
autonomy.
Notes
1 Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit 21:365.
2 “Free Grace,” a sermon preached January 9, 1859.
3 Calvin, Institutes I:2:2, pp. 37-38.
4 Citation is from A Faith to Confess: The Baptist
Confession of Faith of 1689, Rewritten in Modern English
(Carey Publications, 1986).
5 Despite the fact that this is a common element of
Reformed writing on the subject of the will, Dr. Geisler
can ask, “Fifth, if what is evil can’t will good, and if what
is good can’t will evil, then why do Christians who have
been given good natures still choose to sin?” (pp. 28-29).
6 Norman Geisler, Chosen But Free, p. 65.
7 “The Holy Spirit in the Covenant,” a sermon preached in
1856, The Charles H. Spurgeon Collection (Ages Digital
Library, 1998).
 Chapter 4

The Will of Man

The single most important quotation in all of Chosen But Free

is found on pages 233-234:
God’s grace works synergistically on free will. That
is, it must be received to be effective. There are no
conditions for giving grace, but there is one condition
for receiving it—faith. Put in other terms, God’s
justifying grace works cooperatively, not operatively.
Faith is a precondition for receiving God’s gift of
salvation.…Faith is logically prior to regeneration,
since we are saved “through faith” (Eph. 2:8-9) and
“justified by faith” (Rom. 5:1 NASB).
Synergism versus monergism. Grace dependent upon man’s
volition versus the powerful, all-sufficient grace preached by
the Reformation. Faith, the ability of the unregenerate man,
versus saving faith as a divine ability given to the elect. These
are all issues that defined the Reformation, yet, here Dr.
Geisler summarizes his soteriology by promoting the very
position the Reformers rejected long ago. Saying that God’s
grace “works synergistically on free will” is not a Reformed
view. It is not a Calvinistic view. At the most fundamental
level it is a belief that is opposed to the Reformation,1 and I
believe opposed to biblical teaching regarding God, man, and
grace. Rome likewise teaches this kind of synergism, making
grace an aid that is, in the final analysis, dependent upon
man’s choice for its effectiveness. In fact, one need only read
the following sections of the Catechism of the Catholic Church
(1994) to see the striking similarity, even to the level of
phraseology, between the assertions made by Arminians, and
by Dr. Geisler above, and the official position of the Roman
Catholic Church even to this day:
 In faith, the human intellect and will cooperate with
divine grace: “Believing is an act of the intellect
assenting to the divine truth by command of the will
moved by God through grace.” (155)
We should note that the quotation in paragraph 155 is from
Thomas Aquinas: a source used by Dr. Geisler with great
regularity. Later the Catechism says,
The merit of man before God in the Christian life
arises from the fact that God has freely chosen to
associate man with the work of his grace. The fatherly
action of God is first on his own initiative, and then
follows man’s free acting through his collaboration, so
that the merit of good works is to be attributed in the
first place to the grace of God, then to the faithful.
Man’s merit, moreover, itself is due to God, for his
good actions proceed in Christ, from the
predispositions and assistance given by the Holy
Spirit. (2008)
Synergism is the hallmark of man’s religions: monergism the
mark of the biblical gospel. So indelibly written on the
theology of Norman Geisler is the concept of man’s complete
freedom and a synergistic view of grace that he is able to
assert:
In short, it is God’s ultimate and sovereign will that
we have free will to resist His will that all be saved.2
It seems that at least on one issue God’s sovereign will is
accomplished perfectly: the institution, perpetuation, and
maintenance of human free will. While God tries to save as
many people as possible (limited, however, by human free
will), one thing He manages to do without hindrance is to
sovereignly will the freedom of man to resist His salvific will.
The concept of human free will is taken as a philosophical
presupposition by CBF. The person seeking a biblical
presentation of “free will” will be sorely disappointed,
however, in the presentation of the text. For example, Dr.
Geisler begins:
 One of the things God gave His good creatures was a
good power called free will. Mankind intrinsically
recognizes freedom as being good; only those who
usurp and abuse power deny it, and yet even these
value and seek it for themselves.3
Unfortunately, CBF not only misrepresents the Reformed
understanding of the will, but it makes no attempt to establish
its own view through the use of meaningful exegesis. The
careful student will note that the book begins with the
assertion of the necessity of “free will” and “human freedom,”
and only after establishing these necessities via philosophical
argument do we encounter any biblical discussion. This is
exactly backwards from the proper methodology: we begin
with God’s revelation concerning the nature of man and then
move from revelation to reason. CBF barely makes it three
pages into its critique of the “extreme” viewpoint before the
conclusion of the entire book is reached, and it is said it must
be “rejected.”4 No biblical examination has taken place to this
point: the position is rejected on the basis of philosophical
assumptions, not exegesis of the biblical text.
Geisler begins by arguing that men must be free or else 1)
God is to be blamed for the origin of evil and 2) men cannot be
held responsible otherwise. The fact that the Bible addresses
both of these issues clearly (as we have seen above) is not
addressed before Geisler comes to his conclusion that the
Reformed viewpoint cannot be the right one. The lengthy
discussions in answer to these very objections, found in
Reformed works from Calvin,5 Turretin,6 Hodge,7 Wright,8 or
Reymond9 (to name just a few) are completely ignored. This is
one of the major reasons why knowledgeable Reformed
readers are so troubled by CBF’s cavalier attitude toward such
vital issues. To conclude that the entire system is bankrupt by
the third page of the “discussion” shows a lack of concern for
meaningful interaction or representation.
Three years before CBF was published, InterVarsity Press
published R.K. McGregor’s No Place for Sovereignty: What’s
Wrong with Freewill Theism, which constitutes a defense of
the Reformed position and a critique of the very position
espoused by Dr. Geisler in CBF. This work is cited a few
times elsewhere in CBF,10 but it is not cited in the very section
where the majority of its argumentation is focused. This is
perhaps due to the fact that Geisler’s presentation here is
thoroughly Arminian and cannot, in any fashion, be described
as Calvinistic, moderate or otherwise. The second chapter of
CBF presents the following reasons why “free will” must be
true: 1) Without it, men are not responsible for their actions (p.
25); 2) It is part of the way God created man (p. 22); 3) The
Bible teaches free will (p. 32); 4) Denial of free will makes
God the author of sin (pp. 20-21). Later in the book he argues
that to embrace the Reformed position with its denial of
human “free will” leads to “failing to take personal
responsibility for our actions.”11 Yet Wright had written:
Arminians generally argue as follows: 1. If we have
no free will, we are not responsible for our actions….
2. It is essential to the image of God…. 3. The denial
of free will undermines both human effort and
morality.… 4. The Bible teaches free will.… 5. Free
will gets God off the hook in the problem of evil.12
Wright managed to outline the second chapter of CBF two
years before it was written! Yet, there is not a single citation of
Wright’s response to these assertions in CBF. Indeed, when
one reads the discussion in both books, this example of a
conversation between a Calvinist and an Arminian fits the
presentation in CBF so closely that one again cannot miss the
identification of Dr. Geisler’s position as thoroughly
Arminian:
Arminian: Well, we must have a free will to be
responsible human beings.
Calvinist: But what do you mean by “responsible”?
A: Responsibility means we make real choices.
C: What do you mean by a “real” choice? Isn’t a
choice real if it actually occurs at all?
A: Responsibility means that we act individually as
complete human beings, in our own integrity.
 C: You seem to assume that free will is a part of our
humanness.
A: Well, it is. Free will is part of the image of God,
and that’s what makes us human.
C: So we have free will because we act in our own
integrity.
A: Yes, and because we are responsible for our
actions.
C: But a moment ago you based responsibility on free
will. Now you are basing free will on
responsibility.
A: Well, it’s like a chicken-and-egg situation, and it’s
not too easy to decide which comes first.
C: But in the case of the chicken we know which
came first: God created the first chicken.
A: Well, God created us with free will.
C: But how do you know that? Is it in the Bible?
A: But if we don’t have free will we can’t be held
responsible for our actions.
And so forth.…13
The concept of an Arminian “free will” is central to Dr.
Geisler’s “moderate Calvinism.” We are told that reason
“demands that all moral creatures be morally free, that is, they
have the ability to respond one way or another.”14 Why or how
reason can “demand” this is not clear. Here are the assertions
that are made:
From the beginning to the end the Bible affirms, both
implicitly and explicitly, that human beings have free
choice. This is true both prior to and after the Fall of
Adam, although free will is definitely affected by sin
and severely limited in what it can do.15
Exactly how the “free will” is “severely limited” is hard to say.
Whatever these limitations involve, one thing they do not do is
keep man from being able to savingly believe in Christ. He
goes on to assert,
Both Scripture and good reason inform us that
depraved human beings have the power of free choice.
The Bible says fallen man is ignorant, depraved, and a
slave of sin. But all these conditions involve a
choice….Even our enslavement to sin is a result of a
free choice….Even spiritual blindness is a result of the
choice not to believe….Fallen beings are free….And
the vertical ability to believe is everywhere implied in
the Gospel call (cf. Acts 16:31; 17:30). Freedom for
God’s creatures, as it is for the God in whose image
they are made, is described in James 1:18: “Of his own
will begat he us with the word of truth…” (KJV).16
It seems that being ignorant, depraved, and a slave still does
not change the assertion that man has a “free choice.” It is not
explained how one can be a slave to sin and still have a free
choice regarding sin, but it is certainly CBF’s assertion that the
fallen man is free to will good, is free to will what is pleasing
to God. We have already seen Paul taught the exact opposite at
Romans 8:5-9. The inability to believe is directly presented in
John 6:44 and yet this passage is unanswered in CBF. The
issue of faith as a gift, which comes up so often in connection
with man’s will, shall be addressed under the topic of the work
of God in regeneration (irresistible grace).
Dr. Geisler asserts that “free will” is a part of the image of
God,17 which explains the consistent misrepresentation of the
Reformed position throughout CBF in the constant assertion
that “extreme Calvinists” teach the image of God has been
destroyed. In presenting his novel re-definition of the “Five
Points of Calvinism,” Dr. Geisler claims:
T—Total depravity is amply supported by Scripture
in the moderate Calvinist sense. All the Scriptures
used by extreme Calvinists are accepted by moderate
Calvinists; the only difference is that moderates insist
that being “dead” in sin does not mean that unsaved
people cannot understand and receive the truth of the
 gospel as the Spirit of God works on their hearts. That
is, it does not in effect erase the image of God (but
only effaces it).18
Dr. Geisler knows that true Calvinists do not make the claim
that the image of God is erased, for he includes a footnote that
says,
Some extreme Calvinists deny that they believe the
image of God is “destroyed” in fallen humans—at
least formally. But logically this is what their view
demands and practically this is what they hold.19
We are given no logical reason to accept this claim, and given
the many errors found in CBF’s understanding of the
Reformed position, there is really no reason to extend credulity
to such an assertion.20 Geisler goes so far as to say that the
“extreme Calvinist” teaches that the human will is
“destroyed”21 even though, on the same page, he admits this is
not the case, for he writes,
While extreme Calvinists admit that fallen human
beings have biological life, they deny they are alive in
any sense in which they can respond to God; their
natures are so totally corrupt that sin is an unavoidable
necessity. And whereas the faculty of will is present,
nonetheless, the ability to choose to follow God is
destroyed.
Do Calvinists believe man has a will or not? It seems that it is
CBF’s position that unless the will is “free” it is not “real.” An
enslaved will is a “destroyed” will, the clear distinctions of
Reformed confessions of faith notwithstanding.
There is a further error in CBF’s understanding of the
Reformed position in this quotation. Dr. Geisler says that
“extreme Calvinists” believe unregenerate men cannot
“respond to God.” This is simply untrue. Unregenerate men
who are enemies of God most assuredly respond to God: in a
universally negative fashion. They are constantly suppressing
the knowledge of God that is within their hearts, so it is simply
untrue to assert they do not respond to God. They respond in
rebellion and sinfulness, but respond they do!
The idea of “free choice” is so fundamental to the view of
CBF that even the view of salvation as a gift is seen as
teaching the idea:
Even unsaved people have a free choice as to either
receiving or rejecting God’s gift of salvation (Rom
6:23). Jesus spoke of those who rejected Him saying, “
‘O Jerusalem, Jerusalem…how often I have longed to
gather your children together, as a hen gathers her
chicks under her wings, but you were not willing’ ”
(Matt 23:37).22
As we will note in a later chapter, this is a great misuse of
Matthew 23:37. But the main point one has to offer to this
kind of reasoning is this: Romans 6:23 says the wages of sin is
death. There is nothing in the passage that speaks of “free
choice” in the context of creaturely autonomy as CBF presents
it. Salvation is surely the free gift of God’s grace, but it is a
long leap to assume that the nature of the gift indicates the
autonomy of the recipient. Life was a gift given to Lazarus,
but the giving of the gift did not in any way indicate an ability
on the part of the one who received it.
It is important to note a common error in the argumentation
of Arminians that appears in CBF. Dr. Geisler says that we
cannot believe that God “violates” the free choice of any
human being in order to save that person. We saw earlier that
Dr. Geisler calls this a “dehumanizing” of man, “God will not
dehumanize in order to save”23 is his assertion. But what if
man is enslaved to sin, spiritually dead, and incapable of
freeing himself? Are we to believe that God is unable to free
the objects of His love from their bondage to sin and spiritual
death without “dehumanizing” them? The Bible is very clear
that God in His sovereign mercy frees men from bondage and
sin and raises them to spiritual life. He does so not because the
sinner does something to allow Him to so act, but solely on the
basis of His sovereign power. This is not dehumanizing man
but freeing man. Because of this fundamental
misunderstanding, CBF represents the Reformed view as
teaching a “violation” of man’s will. Note this quotation
written in response to John Gerstner’s identification of Geisler
as an Arminian:
If affirming that God will not violate the free choice
of any human being in order to save that person is an
“Arminian” view, then every major church father from
the beginning, including Justin, Irenaeus,
Athenagoras, Clement, Tertullian, Origen, Methodius,
Cyril, Gregory, Jerome, Chrysostom, the early
Augustine, Anselm, and Thomas Aquinas (whom
Sproul greatly admires) were Arminians! Further, if
Sproul’s radical reformation view is correct,24 then
even most Lutherans who follow Melanchthon, not
Luther’s Bondage of the Will, on this point are
Arminians!25

When one looks at the citation quoted by Gerstner26 (to

which Geisler is responding) there is no other way of
interpreting Geisler’s intention. He was not merely saying that
God would not “violate” man’s freedom: he was explicitly
asserting that God “will do everything within His loving
power to save all He can.” That phrase “all He can” is
anathema to any kind of Reformed belief: it is pure, 100%
Arminianism, as Gerstner rightly said. The God of Scripture is
able to save perfectly and completely all He desires to save:
the fact that not all are saved leads inexorably to the truth of
divine election. Therefore, CBF denies this divine truth and
instead replaces it with the idea of “determinately knowing”
already reviewed in chapter two.

Dead In Sin
Reformed authors frequently point to the biblical teaching
that man is “dead in sin” as substantiation of their belief that
God must be absolutely sovereign and salvation must be
completely of free grace and not a synergistic cooperation
between God and man since man is not capable of
“cooperating” anymore than a corpse is able to help in its own
resurrection. Because of this, CBF invests a great deal of effort
in the attempt to redefine “spiritual death” so that it is no
longer incompatible with “free choice” and human autonomy.
We have already seen that CBF indicates that God’s creation
of the “list” of the elect is based, in some way, upon the
actions of men. Therefore, CBF must find a way for man to be
active even though spiritually dead. Even though dead, man
must be able to do “vertical” or spiritual good. Geisler rightly
defines the Calvinistic view at one point:
But they are incapable of any “vertical” or spiritual
good and, according to extreme Calvinism, they are
totally incapable of initiating, attaining, or ever
receiving the gift of salvation without the grace of
God.27
As a result, CBF sees the result of believing in this “extreme”
view of total depravity:
Extreme Calvinists believe that a totally depraved
person is spiritually dead. By “spiritual death” they
mean the elimination of all human ability to
understand or respond to God, not just a separation
from God. Further, the effects of sin are intensive
(destroying the ability to receive salvation), not
extensive (corrupting the ability to receive salvation).
It must immediately be said that it is not the Reformed
position that spiritual death means “the elimination of all
human ability to understand or respond to God.” Unregenerate
man is fully capable of understanding the facts of the gospel:
he is simply incapable, due to his corruption and enmity, to
submit himself to that gospel. And he surely responds to God
every day: negatively, in rebellion and self-serving sinfulness.
The Reformed assertion is that man cannot understand and
embrace the gospel nor respond in faith and repentance
toward Christ without God first freeing him from sin and
giving him spiritual life (regeneration).
So how does Dr. Geisler respond to the clear assertion of
Scripture that man is, indeed, dead in sin? Here is his response
to Ephesians 2:1 and the Reformed interpretation of it:
 This extreme Calvinistic interpretation of what is
meant by spiritual “death” is questionable. First of all,
spiritual “death” in the Bible is a strong expression
meaning that fallen beings are totally separated from
God, not completely obliterated by Him. As Isaiah put
it, “your iniquities have separated you from your
God” (Isa. 59:2). In brief, it does not mean a total
destruction of all ability to hear and respond to God,
but a complete separation of the whole person from
God.28
Each assertion in this response is flawed. First, Geisler
misrepresents the Reformed position by contrasting “total
separation from God” with the strange idea of being
“completely obliterated by Him.” Where do Reformed writers
say spiritual death involves “complete obliteration” by God?
Being dead in sin does refer to separation from godly life; such
is a partial truth. But obviously Paul intends something more
than “separation” when he contrasts the horrific state of the
“spiritually dead” with the glorious position of the person who
is alive in Christ. The very use of the imagery of resurrection
shows us this. But no one asserts this means “total
obliteration.” What is “obliterated” is the ability of man to
subject himself to the law of God, not the man himself.
Next, we are not told how the true statement found in Isaiah
59:2 is relevant to the conclusion that follows its presentation.
Isaiah 59 is cited by Paul in Romans 3:15f as evidence of the
universal sinfulness of man. But how does the single assertion
that sin brings separation a basis for saying that this is all it
brings?
Finally, if a person experiences complete separation from
God, does it not follow that one is separated from the only
source of goodness, light, and truth? Are we to believe that
such a person who is totally separated from God can come up
with righteous desires, love for truth, repentance toward God,
etc., simply from themselves? Geisler goes on:
Second, even though they are spiritually “dead,” the
unsaved persons can perceive the truth of God. In
Romans, Paul declares emphatically that God’s truth is
 “clearly seen” by them so that they are “without
excuse” (1:20).29
Again, no Reformed exegete would say otherwise. But Dr.
Geisler confuses the contexts of Romans 1 and Ephesians 2.
Romans 1 is referring to the truth of the existence of God that
is revealed through creation itself and is known by all men
(Romans 1:18-23). Paul is not addressing the truth of the
gospel message in Romans 1. So while the unsaved man
knows the truth of God’s existence, this is clearly not the same
thing as asserting that he is able to embrace and obey the
gospel. The two concepts are completely distinct, and no effort
is made by CBF to connect the two. So far, no commentary
has been offered by Dr. Geisler on the actual text of Ephesians
2:1. But we press on:
In short, depravity involves the corruption of life
but not its destruction. The image of God in fallen
humans is effaced but not erased. Even unsaved
people are said to be in God’s image (Gen. 9:6). The
image is marred by not eradicated by sin (cf. James
3:9).30
This is reiteration, not exegesis. This is what Dr. Geisler
believes, and even though it again misrepresents the Reformed
position (i.e., the assertion that the Calvinist believes the
image of God is “eradicated”), it does not provide any kind of
positive evidence or discussion of the meaning of Ephesians 2
and the phrase “dead in sin.” Calvinists often refer to “radical
corruption” as a synonym for “total depravity.” Surely man is
corrupted in the fall. But the issue is, what does it mean that
he is “dead in sin” as described in Ephesians 2:1? Quite
simply, Geisler doesn’t deal with the passage. Instead, the
misrepresentation of the Reformed position is pressed forward:
Fourth, if spiritually “dead” amounts to a kind of
spiritual annihilation, rather than separation, then the
“second death” (Rev. 20:10) would be eternal
annihilation, too—a doctrine rejected by extreme
Calvinists.31
It is difficult to know how to respond to this kind of
argumentation, as it is based upon such obvious errors. First, it
is Dr. Geisler’s assertion that Calvinists equate being dead in
sin with annihilation: it is not the assertion of Calvinists.
Hence, the proffered argument has no merit even if one were
to buy the idea that the term “dead” must mean exactly the
same thing in all contexts (something no sound exegete would
affirm anyway). Geisler’s attempted response to the passage
ends with no exegetical content, but only a repeat of the
primary assumptions of his entire system:
A spiritually dead person, then, is in need of
spiritual life from God. But he does exist, and he can
know and choose. His faculties that make up the
image of God are not absent, they are simply
incapable of initiating or attaining their own salvation.
Like a drowning person, a fallen person can reach out
and accept the lifeline even though he cannot make it
to safety on his own.32
First, this is surely the Arminian position. The analogy of the
drowning person is semi-Pelagian/Arminian. What it surely is
not is Calvinistic. But what does it mean to say that a
spiritually dead person, while dead, can still “reach out and
accept the lifeline”? How can that be? Dead men do not reach
out for anything.
Colossians 2:12-13 likewise teaches the truth that man is
dead in sin outside of Christ. CBF provides a two sentence
response to this passage:
Finally, in the parallel passage (Col. 2:12-13) Paul
speaks of those “dead in your sins and in the
uncircumcision of your sinful nature” being able to
believe. For he said, “you have been raised with him
through your faith in the power of God.”33
This is all that is said. The analogy of baptism that is used in
2:11-12 precedes Paul’s use of the word “dead,” which instead
is again connected with “being made alive” by Christ.
Seemingly the assertion being made is the person who has
faith in the power of God is an unregenerate, spiritually dead
person. How this is proven from the text, or why we should
believe this in light of Paul’s statement in Romans 8:8, is not
explained. In short, CBF’s theology simply cannot provide a
coherent explanation of Ephesians 2:1/Colossians 2:13, and
none is offered. Instead, the response offered is nothing but a
mixture of straw man arguments against Calvinism with the
simple reiteration of the Arminian mantra of free-willism.
Notice the amazing use of the phrase “so dead” in the
following citation based upon the presentation of the Puritan
writer William Ames:
What is more, according to Ames, God determines
to save whomever He wishes regardless of whether
they choose to believe or not. In fact, God gives the
faith to believe to whomever He wills. Without this
God-given faith they could not and would not believe.
In fact, fallen human beings are so dead in sin that
God must first regenerate them before they can even
believe. Dead men do not believe anything; they are
dead!34
Are there degrees of “deadness,” so that one can be dead, yet
not so dead as to require spiritual life before believing? If men
are dead in sin at all, it follows that they must have spiritual
life restored to them before they can do spiritually good things.
The only error in the above presentation is that Ames does not
say “dead men do not believe anything.” Spiritually dead men
believe all sorts of things: just not those things that are
pleasing to God.

A Tremendous Inconsistency
Before examining specific Scriptural passages cited in CBF
regarding total depravity a tremendous example of
inconsistency in the presentation of the work should be noted.
Responding to Arminians who say that if you chose to get
“into” salvation you can surely choose to get “out” of it, CBF
makes the following amazing statements:
 First of all, this rationale is not biblically based; it is
speculative and should be treated as such.
The same can be said for the vast majority of CBF’s assertions
about the will of man and any number of other arguments.
Second, it is not logically necessary to accept this
reasoning, even on a purely rational basis. Some
decisions in life are one-way with no possibility of
reversing them: suicide, for example. Saying “oops”
after jumping off a cliff will not reverse the
consequences of the decision.
Quite true, but such seems to prove far more than Dr. Geisler
would like: committing a single act of sin makes one a sinner
and places one under the power of death and condemnation.
While Geisler insists that one chooses to remain a slave of sin,
and can, at any time, simply choose by the exercise of free
choice to become a believer and cease being a slave, here he
argues that once you accept Christ the decision is inalterable
and there is no escaping the consequences. Logically his
position is inconsistent at best.
Third, by this same logic the Arminian would have
to argue that we can be lost even after we get to
heaven. Otherwise, he would have to deny we are free
in heaven. But if we are still free in heaven and yet
cannot be lost, then why is it logically impossible for
us to be free on earth and yet never lose our salvation?
In both cases the biblical answer is that God’s
omnipotent power is able to keep us from falling—in
accordance with our free choice.35
First, CBF does not offer us an explanation of how we can be
“free” in heaven and yet not able to fall. Given the very
definition of freedom found throughout CBF it would have to
follow of necessity that the redeemed human being in glory
would have to be able to commit an act of sin or else be
“dehumanized.” Evidently, the ability to sin is not
constitutional or definitional of true humanity. So this response
fails in all three attempts (showing that Geisler’s acceptance of
“eternal security” is inconsistent with his emphasis upon
human ability and free will). But what is even more troubling
to the careful reader is this: the final statement promotes the
idea that even the eternal state of the redeemed, while
supported by “God’s omnipotent power,” is still a function of
that power working “in accordance with our free choice.” The
centrality—indeed, supremacy—of man’s freedom over God’s
in this viewpoint is an amazing thing to ponder.
Numerous passages of Scripture are cited in the text of
CBF. We now turn to an examination of the exegesis offered
in support of the “moderate Calvinist” position (i.e.,
Arminianism).

John 12:39-40
For this reason they could not believe, for Isaiah said
again, “HE HAS BLINDED THEIR EYES AND HE HARDENED
THEIR HEART, SO THAT THEY WOULD NOT SEE WITH THEIR
EYES AND PERCEIVE WITH THEIR HEART, AND BE
CONVERTED AND I HEAL THEM.”

At the end of Jesus’ public ministry a group of Greeks sought

out Jesus. This prompted the Lord to complete His public
teaching and withdraw in preparation for His passion. As John
records these words he provides a theological commentary on
the close of this phase of Jesus’ ministry. He draws from
passages in Isaiah as prophetic substantiation of the ministry
of Christ. In 12:39-40 John explains why the Jews, despite
seeing the very Incarnate Son, did not believe. The first
statement that must be explained by Geisler is clear: “For this
reason they could not believe.” This is not a mistranslation
.The Greek is plain: διὰ το το οὐκ ἠδύναντο πιστεύειν, “for
this reason (introducing the quotation that follows) they were
not able to believe (common word for “believe” or “have
faith”). Surely if one’s entire position is based upon the
assertion that all are able to believe, a clear Scriptural passage
that speaks of anyone’s inability to believe should receive a
large amount of in-depth, contextual response. Dr. Geisler
provides three points in response that will be useful in
establishing the kind of hermeneutic used by CBF:
 (1) Belief was obviously their responsibility, since
God held them responsible for not believing. Only two
verses earlier we read, “Even after Jesus had done all
these miraculous signs in their presence, they still
would not believe in him” (John 12:37).
One could argue that perfect behavior is the responsibility of
all men, but it does not follow that sinful man has the capacity
to do so. One does read of their unwillingness to believe two
verses earlier. However, John then explains that unwillingness
to believe in 12:38, by stating, “This was to fulfill the word of
Isaiah the prophet which he spoke: ‘LORD, WHO HAS BELIEVED
OUR REPORT? AND TO WHOM HAS THE ARM OF THE LORD BEEN
REVEALED?’” John’s own interpretation of their unbelief was
that it was a fulfillment of prophecy. So the first response does
not substantiate Dr. Geisler’s free-will theory.
(2) Jesus was speaking to hardhearted Jews who
had seen many indisputable miracles (including the
resurrection of Lazarus [John 11]) and who had been
called upon many times to believe before this point
(cf. John 8:26), which reveals that they were able to
do so.
Actually, these words are John’s, not Jesus’, and these are
comments about the unbelief of the Jews in general. Yes, they
had been called upon to repent and believe. It does not follow,
however, that “they were able to do so” when verse 39 says
they were not able to do so. Here we have the plain assertion
of Scripture being overturned because it can’t mean what it
says. The assumption is that if God commands all men
everywhere to repent, then that must mean that all men
everywhere are morally neutral creatures with free wills who
are not enslaved by sin. But this does not follow. God
commands all men everywhere to love Him with all their
heart, soul, mind and strength, but sin does not allow any of
the fallen sons of Adam to do so. So we turn to the last attempt
to answer the passage:
(3) It was their own stubborn unbelief that brought
on their blindness. Jesus said to them, “I told you that
 you would die in your sins, if you do not believe that I
am, you will indeed die in your sins.” (John 8:24).
Thus, it was chosen and avoidable blindness.36
It is an assumption that the audience in John 12 is identical
with that of John 8.37 But that issue aside, this final response
again fails to deal with the simple statement of the passage
concerning the inability of these men to believe. Let’s say they
had indeed engaged in “stubborn unbelief.” Are we to believe
that this practice eventually robs a man of his free will? The
passage explains their unbelief as a fulfillment of prophecy,
not the result of anything these men did themselves. If it was
stubborn unbelief that brought on their blindness (something
the passage does not assert), then their stubborn unbelief was
just as much a fulfillment of the prophecy as anything else.
None of this, including the citation of a different context (John
8) in any way 1) answers the plain assertion of the passage that
belief was not within their ability, nor 2) provides any kind of
substantiation for the conclusion that it was “chosen and
avoidable blindness.” If it was avoidable, does that mean the
prophecy itself was avoidable? No one argues that these men
did not choose to not believe: the issue is was their choice a
part of God’s sovereign decree or was God limited to their
“free choices” and His perfect knowledge of them? The
conclusion provided by CBF is not derived from the text but is
forced onto the text: a classic example of eisegesis.38

I Corinthians 2:14
Paul spoke of the spiritual inabilities of the natural
(unregenerate) man when he wrote to the Corinthians:
But a natural man does not accept the things of the
Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and
he cannot understand them, because they are
spiritually appraised.
Let’s briefly note some exegetical points about the passage: it
is clearly two parallel statements, which could be put this way:
 But a natural man
does not accept the things of the Spirit of God,
for they are foolishness to him;
and he cannot understand them, because they are
spiritually appraised.
The first line identifies the subject. The next two clauses are
parallel assertions containing first an inability of the natural
man followed by an explanation of why this is so. Therefore,
the meaning of “does not accept” and “cannot understand” are
parallel to one another and must be interpreted in light of the
other. Likewise, the foolishness of the things of the Spirit of
God is due to the fact that they are spiritually appraised, and
the natural man is not a spiritual man.
CBF presents this passage and asserts that it “is used by
extreme Calvinists to support the idea that unregenerate
persons cannot even understand the Gospel or any spiritual
truths of Scripture.”39 The term “understand” should be taken
as it is used in this passage: the natural man cannot accept and
embrace spiritual things because he himself is not spiritually
alive. He may well completely understand the proclamation of
the gospel itself: but until spiritual life is given to him, the
words are empty. Geisler comments:
This interpretation, however, fails to take note that
the word “receiveth” (Greek: dekomai) means “to
welcome.” It simply affirms that while he does
perceive the truth (Rom. 1:20), he does not receive it.
There is no welcome in his heart for what he knows in
his head. He has the truth, but he is holding it down or
suppressing it (Rom. 1:18). It makes no sense to say
that an unsaved person cannot understand the gospel
before he is saved. On the contrary, the entire New
Testament implies that he cannot be saved unless he
understands and believes the gospel.40
The Greek term δέχομαι can mean “welcome,” but as we
noted, its meaning here should be paralleled with “spiritual
understanding.” There is no exegetical or contextual reason to
bring in Romans 1:20, for the two contexts are addressing
different things. As we have noted, Romans 1 is speaking of
general revelation in creation itself, not the “spiritual things”
of the gospel that Paul is addressing when speaking to the
Corinthians.
Next, we note that CBF’s attempted exegesis focuses upon
one phrase while ignoring how that line relates to the rest of
the sentence. Why no discussion of the things of the Spirit
being “foolishness” to the natural man? If the natural man has
the ability to embrace these things and believe them, as Geisler
asserts, would it not be incumbent upon him to explain how
what was once foolishness becomes wisdom without
regeneration taking place first? Why no discussion of the
inability of man to “know” or “understand” them, as the text
plainly asserts? Why no response to the fact that the things of
the Spirit are “spiritually appraised” by spiritual men but not
by the natural man, who lacks the ability to do so? Is it
because the Arminian position must hold to the idea that the
unregenerate man can, to some extent, know, understand,
appreciate, and in fact, accept, spiritual things so that the
spiritually dead rebel can then cause his own regeneration by
exercising true saving faith that is pleasing to God? Such
seems to be the case. Geisler continues:
Total depravity is to be understood in an extensive,
rather than an intensive manner. That is, sin extends to
the whole person, “spirit, soul and body” (1 Thess.
5:23), not just to part of the person. However, if
depravity has destroyed man’s ability to know good
from evil and to choose the good over the evil, then it
would have destroyed man’s ability to sin. If total
depravity were to be true in this intensive (read:
extreme Calvinist) sense, it would destroy man’s
ability to be depraved at all. For a being with no moral
faculties and no moral abilities is not a moral being at
all; instead, it is amoral, and no moral expectation can
be held over it.41
We see again the error of CBF’s entire understanding of the
position it seeks to deny. No one asserts total depravity has
destroyed man’s ability to know good from evil. This is yet
another straw man. There is a world of difference between
saying a man is enslaved to sin so that it is the constant desire
of his or her heart to be in rebellion against God and to serve
self rather than God, and saying man no longer knows good
from evil. Hence, the assertion that this representation of
“intensive” depravity is the Reformed viewpoint is simply a
basic error of understanding. And once more, we see that this
paragraph has little, if any, connection with the Scriptural
passage it is allegedly responding to (1 Corinthians 2:14).

John 8:34-48
We noted the witness of John 8:31-34 in the previous
chapter. These words of the Lord introduce a discussion that
includes clear teaching on the sovereignty of God in salvation.
For example:
“Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is
because you cannot hear My word. You are of your
father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your
father” (8:43-44), and “He who is of God hears the
words of God; for this reason you do not hear them,
because you are not of God” (8:48).
Again the Reformed and biblical view of man is presented
with force: Jesus teaches that the Jews cannot (there’s that
word of inability again) hear His word and do not understand
what He is saying. He is not saying they are confused: He is
saying they lack the spiritual ability to appraise spiritual truths.
Their nature is fleshly, natural, and in fact, demonic, in that
they desire to do the desires of their father, the devil. Then, a
few verses later, the Lord speaks words that are normally
turned completely upside down by Arminian interpreters.
Jesus explains why these men do not “hear” His words. Now
obviously, they could hear Him just fine. He was not speaking
too softly to be heard. But they could not hear with
understanding nor acceptance. The one who is “of God” hears
His words: the one who is not does not. Jesus specifically says
these Jews are not “of God,” or as the NIV puts it, do not
“belong to God.” While Arminians would say “If you act upon
what you hear you will become one that belongs to God,”
Jesus says just the opposite: until one “belongs to God” one
will not “hear” the words of Jesus. As in John 6 we see that
something must happen before a person can “hear” or believe
in Christ: and that is the work of God in regenerating the
natural man and bringing him to spiritual life.
CBF completely ignores John 8:48, not mentioning it, or its
witness to the Reformed proclamation. But a brief response is
offered to John 8:44, though again without accurately
representing the Calvinistic position. Here is the assertion:
From this text extreme Calvinists conclude that
fallen humans cannot avoid sinning because they are
by nature “the children of the devil” (1 John 3:10)
who have “been taken captive by him to do his will”
(2 Tim. 2:25-26 NKJV).42
Actually, the Calvinistic use of the passage is that man does
the desires of his heart, and until a heart is renewed, those
desires are not pleasing to God. An unregenerate man can
choose not to commit a particular act of sin: what he cannot do
is choose to do that which is spiritually pleasing to God.
Geisler comments:
But it does not follow that we have no free choice in
the matter. Jesus said, “I tell you the truth, everyone
who sins is a slave to sin’ ” (John 8:34). In fact, in the
very text cited to support the extreme Calvinist view,
note that it says, “ ‘You want [will] to carry out your
father’s [the devil’s] desire’ ” (John 8:44). It is by their
choice that they follow the devil.
But surely the text teaches exactly what Dr. Geisler is denying!
Of course they want to do the will of their father, that’s the
whole point. They always want to do this! That’s total
depravity and enslavement to sin. What they are not able to do
is will to do the will of God the Father, that which is holy and
just and right (Romans 8:7-8). “Everyone who sins is a slave
to sin” means all are slaves to sin since all sin! It is a
continuation of the straw-man argumentation that marks CBF
to say that the Reformed do not say that man chooses to sin.
Man always chooses to sin: our assertion is that one cannot
choose to do what is holy and righteous before God unless he
or she is given a new nature in regeneration.

Romans 3:10-11
In the previous chapter we noted the testimony of Romans
3:10-18 to the utter and universal depravity of man. We noted
especially the words of verse 11, where we are told that there
is none who understands and none who seeks for God. These
words have to be explained by the Arminian who seeks to
promote the theory of free-will. If there is “no God-seeker”
(the literal rendering of the passage), the assertion that men
seek after God and choose to believe and repent outside of the
work of God’s sovereign grace is refuted. Does Geisler offer
an exegetical response? Let’s see:
The moderate Calvinist (and Arminian) has no
problem with such a rendering of these verses. It is
God who initiates salvation.… We seek Him, then,
only because He has first sought us. However, as a
result of the convicting work of the Holy Spirit on the
whole “world” (John 16:8) and “the goodness of God”
(Rom. 2:4 NKJV), some people are moved to repent.
Likewise, as a result of God’s grace some seek Him.43
One cannot help but find somewhat humorous the conjunction
of the “moderate Calvinist” and Arminian, since, in reality,
they hold to the same fundamental beliefs, as we have seen
proven repeatedly already. But no one can find the attempted
response worthwhile. Yes, God initiates salvation: and that
perfectly. God initiates the salvation of His elect. It seems the
idea being promoted here is that God’s prevenient grace moves
some, but not all. We will see the error of this view as we
move shortly to the discussion of God’s unconditional election
of a specific people in Christ.

Romans 8:7-8
 The final passage we will examine is the strident claim by
Paul that the person who is still in the flesh is unable to submit
himself to the law of God and cannot please God. It is my
position that this text is completely opposed to the central
assertion that is made in CBF regarding the “freedom” of the
fallen man. Dr. Geisler offers a single paragraph in response.
Is the response based upon the text? Is it exegetical in content?
Or philosophical and a-contextual? Here it is:
It is true that we are sinners by nature, but that old
nature does not make sin necessary any more than a
new nature makes good acts necessary. The old nature
only makes sin inevitable, not unavoidable. Since we
are free, sin is not necessary. Again, as Augustine said,
we are born with the propensity to sin, not the
necessity to sin. If sin were necessary, then we would
not be responsible for it…, which the Bible declares
we are (Rom. 3:19). Furthermore, Paul makes it clear
in this section of Romans that our enslavement to sin
is our free choice. He wrote, “Don’t you know that
when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as
slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey—
whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or
to obedience, which leads to righteousness?” (Rom.
6:16). We are born with a bent to sin, but we still have
a choice whether we will be its slave.44
This is the kind of response provided to the vast majority of
biblical argumentation in CBF: there is no exegesis of the text
here. There are philosophical assertions, linguistic distinctions,
and citations of foreign contexts, but the text is not touched.
The point of the passage is that men cannot will to do what is
pleasing to God. It seems Dr. Geisler believes in the ability to
perform neutral actions: actions that are neither good nor bad.
But that point aside, does any of this respond to what Paul
actually says? In no way. Look again at the text:
“the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God.…”
It does not say “the mind set on the flesh is sometimes hostile,
sometimes friendly, sometimes neutral, all depending on its
own free choice.” If there is constant hostility between the
unregenerate human and the holy God (as there of necessity
must be as long as the sin issue is unresolved, the very wrath
of God abides upon the sinner, and that sinner remains in
active rebellion against God) how can it be that the sinner can
“choose” to do what is good and right in God’s sight?
“for it does not subject itself to the law of God…”
This is a statement of fact untouched by CBF in its attempted
response. There is nothing more pleasing to God than
submission to His law: but the fleshly mind is in rebellion, not
subjection, to God’s law. And we note that such things as
repentance and faith are surely a part of subjection to God’s
law: but Paul says the fleshly mind does not subject itself to
that law.
“for it is not even able to do so.”
This is an absolutely crucial statement that is lost in CBF’s
response. While Geisler takes as a presupposition “we are
free,” the text speaks of the inability of fallen man. The fleshly
mind lacks the ability to subject itself to the holy law of God.
The Greek is not ambiguous or difficult: οὐδὲ γὰρ δύναται is
literally translated “for it is not even able,” the NASB
providing the assumed phrase to do so. The issue is not
whether a person can choose to commit a heinous sin or a less
heinous sin: everyone agrees that no man has been as bad as he
could be. The issue is plainly stated by the text: is fallen man
free to do what is pleasing to God outside of regeneration? The
answer is an unequivocal “no.” Yet Geisler’s entire system is
based upon the absolute necessity of affirming the opposite.
But Paul nails the coffin closed on free willism:
“and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.”
Paul does not say “those who are in the flesh at times do things
that are displeasing to God, but at other times do things that
are pleasing to Him.” He does not teach that “men are free to
believe in Christ at any time” for obviously, such an action is
well-pleasing to God. How can a person in the flesh do such
things as repent, believe, turn from sin, embrace holiness, etc.,
when they are still in the flesh? Unregenerate man lacks the
ability to please God. Something must happen first: he has to
be translated from the realm of the flesh to that of the spirit.
He must be raised to spiritual life so that he can do what is
pleasing to God: repent and believe in Christ.
CBF does make reference to a previous context, Romans
6:16, where Paul is speaking to regenerate men about the
struggle that is theirs in this life, and how they must serve
Christ in their bodies (rather than sin). But this is manifestly a
different topic than that which Paul is addressing in Romans
8:7-8.
Notes
1 Robert Reymond in his A New Systematic Theology of the
Christian Faith (Thomas Nelson, 1998) writes, “The
Reformers of the sixteenth century… rejected the
synergistic stance of Roman Catholic soteriology and
returned to the earlier best insights of the later Augustine
and to the inspired insights of Paul in his letters to the
Romans and the Galatians” (p. 469).
2 CBF, p. 95.
3 Ibid., p. 22.
4 Ibid., p. 21.
5 Institutes I:XV-XVIII.
6 Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology
(Presbyterian and Reformed, 1992), I:659-682.
7 See especially the discussion found in his Systematic
Theology, Part II, Ch. IX
8 R.K. McGregor Wright, No Place For Sovereignty
(InterVarsity Press, 1996), pp. 177-203.
9 Robert L. Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the
Christian Faith (Thomas Nelson, 1998), pp. 346-378,
453-458.
10 Specifically, 85, 199.
11 Ibid, p. 132.
12 Wright, pp. 40-41.
13 Wright, p. 46.
14 CBF, p. 29.
15 Ibid., p. 32.
16 Ibid., p. 33.
17 Ibid. p. 32.
18 Ibid., p. 116.
19 Ibid.
20 Indeed, the statement quoted above, aside from redefining
total depravity, continues the misunderstanding of the
Reformed belief, for Calvinists surely do believe that
unsaved people can and do understand the truth of the
Gospel, and they universally reject it outside of the divine
act of regeneration. The difference between the Arminian
and the Calvinist is that the Arminian can speak of the
Spirit of God working in the heart but failing to bring
about salvation while the Calvinist has no such concept. If
the Spirit of God works in the heart of the elect individual
to bring about spiritual life and faith, He will not fail in His
work. As we will see later, Dr. Geisler vehemently denies
that the Spirit of God can infallibly bring spiritual life (i.e.,
irresistible grace), and since we have already seen that he
asserts that God will save as many as He can, it follows
without question that his is the Arminian, not the
Calvinistic, viewpoint.
21 Ibid. p. 57.
22 Ibid., p. 34.
23 Donald Campbell, ed., Walvoord: A Tribute (Moody Press,
1982). p. 103.
24 One cannot help but notice this phrase for it seems to
indicate clearly that Dr. Geisler separates himself from the
“radical reformation” view espoused by Luther and Calvin.
There is likewise a clear categorical error in such an
assertion: Arminians may well share the common error of
detracting from God’s freedom and asserting creaturely
autonomy with many previous religious movements, but
that does not make everyone else an “Arminian.” Semi-
Pelagianism might be a better term to use for the view that
mixes sovereign grace and human ability, ultimately
making grace dependent upon man’s will for its efficacious
power (something Dr. Geisler plainly states as we have
seen). But we can only again express amazement that
Geisler would even desire to be called a “moderate
 Calvinist” when he separates himself so strongly from
Calvin and Calvinism as a whole on such fundamental
issues.
25 CBF, p. 53.
26 Provided in chapter 2 and taken from Geisler’s article in
the Walvoord tribute, pp. 102-103.
27 CBF, p. 56.
28 Ibid., p. 57.
29 Ibid., pp. 57-58.
30 Ibid., p. 58.
31 Ibid.
32 Ibid., p. 58.
33 Ibid.
34 Ibid., p. 47.
35 Ibid., pp. 122-123.
36 Ibid., p. 35.
37 Beyond this, John 8 teaches the same concept of man’s
inability in 8:43ff.
38 Should anyone be offended at the charge of eisegesis, it
should be pointed out that Dr. Geisler often made this
assertion (we believe wrongly) in CBF. For example, in
footnote 15 on page 28 he writes, “It is painful to watch
extreme Calvinists go through these exegetical contortions
to make a text say what their preconceived theology
mandates that it must say.” It is the conviction of this
writer, and many others who have reviewed this work, that
the “exegetical contortions” are found in the pages of CBF,
not in the pages of the works of such fine expositors as
Owen, Piper, Gerstner or Sproul.
39 Ibid., p. 60.
40 Ibid., pp. 60-61.
41 Ibid., p. 61.
42 Ibid., p. 62.
43 Ibid., p. 66.
44 Ibid., p. 65.
 Chapter 5

Unconditional Election a Necessity

Some terms and phrases are self-definitional. They contain

within themselves their own meaning. The theological phrase
“unconditional election” would seem to indicate an election or
choice made without conditions. And historically that is how
the phrase has been understood. But CBF presents an
interesting twist on the phrase. Dr. Geisler claims to believe in
unconditional election “as held by moderate Calvinists.” And
what does this involve? “It is unconditional from the
standpoint of the Giver, even though there is one condition for
the receiver—faith.”1 What does this mean? Earlier in the
work Geisler concludes a section “Avoiding Extreme
Calvinism’s View of Unconditional Election” by stating, “In
short, we are chosen but free—which is directly contrary to the
conclusion of the extreme Calvinists.”2 So whatever else he
means, one thing is for certain: he does not mean what
Reformed writers have meant down through the centuries. So
what does he mean? Here’s his conclusion:
In summary, the error of extreme Calvinism
regarding “unconditional election” is the failure to
adhere to an election that is unconditional from the
standpoint of the Giver (God), but has one condition
for the receiver—faith. This, in turn, is based on the
mistaken notion that faith is a gift only to the elect,
who have no choice in receiving it.2
Unconditional election, then, is unconditional only in that God
gives salvation without conditions; it is conditioned upon faith
on the part of the recipient, who, we have already seen, is
strongly affirmed by Dr. Geisler to be free to believe as he or
she wishes. Election then is conditioned upon human faith:
God gives it freely to all who will believe. As Geisler said in
another work:
God wills the salvation of men only conditionally.
Therefore, God’s will to salvation does not violate
human free choice; it utilizes it.3
We need to remember that CBF promotes a most unusual
view of God’s foreknowledge and man’s freedom. In chapter
two we laid out the position that leads Geisler to say, “there is
no chronological or logical priority of election and
foreknowledge.” Which “comes first” is something he insists
cannot (and should not) be answered, since they are “one” in
God. We saw that this argument is based upon false premises
and is not valid. We likewise saw that it does not work, for it
becomes obvious that in Geisler’s view man’s free choice does
become determinative. God’s “determination” is passive while
man’s “free choice” is active. In attacking the Reformed
position on unconditional election, Geisler reveals his position
clearly:
According to this view, God’s predetermination is
done in spite of His foreknowledge of human free acts.
God operates with such unapproachable sovereignty
that His choices are made with total disregard for the
choices of mortal men.4
Remember, CBF is here denying that this is true. If it is untrue
that God operates with “total disregard for the choices of
mortal men,” then it follows that it is true that He operates in
light of the choices of mortal men. And this is exactly what is
asserted in CBF:
There is an important corollary to this view. If free
choices were not considered at all when God made the
list of the elect, then irresistible grace on the unwilling
follows. That is, man would have no say in his own
salvation.5
It follows then that Geisler operates on the basis of believing
that man’s free choices were “considered” when “God made
the list of the elect.” CBF is saying man does have a say in his
own salvation, the work is synergistic, a matter of cooperation.
Therefore, there can be no use of the term “unconditional
election” in its consistent and historic meaning, for if the term
means anything, it means that salvation is totally of God and
not of man.
In all fairness it appears that Dr. Geisler lives on both sides
of this issue, however, for in a footnote on page 117 he writes,
This does not mean the sinner does something to
become one of the elect. God alone does that on the
basis of grace alone ….It means only that the elect
must believe in Christ to receive this gift of salvation.
Are there a specific elect people, chosen distinctly from the
non-elect, chosen without any reference to their own free
choices? It will become painfully obvious as we examine
CBF’s attempts to present biblical arguments against the
Reformed position that the answer to this question is “no.”
Despite the complications and philosophical distinctions, when
one boils it all down to the basic questions, Geisler holds to
the Arminian view:
Few teachings are more evident in the New
Testament than that God loves all people, that Christ
died for the sins of all human beings, and that God
desires all persons to be saved.6

Just What Does Unconditional Election

Mean?
Given the confusion introduced by Dr. Geisler’s use of the
phrase “unconditional election” to actually refer to an
unconditional decision to offer salvation that is conditioned,
with reference to the actual accomplishment of the salvation of
any individual, upon the free choices of men, it is necessary to
establish the historic meaning of the phrase before we can
respond to CBF’s unique viewpoint.
A modern language rendition of the London Baptist
Confession of Faith (1689) says the following concerning
election:
God’s decree is not based upon His foreknowledge
that, under certain conditions, certain happenings will
take place, but is independent of all such
foreknowledge.
By His decree, and for the manifestation of His
glory, God has predestinated (or foreordained) certain
men and angels to eternal life through Jesus Christ,
thus revealing His grace. Others, whom He has left to
perish in their sins, show the terror of His justice.
The angels and men who are the subjects of God’s
predestination are clearly and irreversibly designated,
and their number is unalterably fixed.
Before the world was made, God’s eternal,
immutable purpose, which originated in the secret
counsel and good pleasure of His will, moved Him to
choose (or to elect), in Christ, certain of mankind to
everlasting glory. Out of His mere free grace and love
He predestined these chosen ones to life, although
there was nothing in them to cause Him to choose
them.
Not only has God appointed the elect to glory in
accordance with the eternal and free purpose of His
will, but He has also foreordained the means by which
His purpose will be effected. Since His elect are
children of Adam and therefore among those ruined
by Adam’s fall into sin, He willed that they should be
redeemed by Christ, and effectually called to faith in
Christ. Furthermore, by the working of His Spirit in
due season they are justified, adopted, sanctified, and
‘kept by His power through faith unto salvation’.
None but the elect partake of any of these great
benefits.7
The Westminster Confession of Faith reads very much the
same. The same concepts will be found in many of the great
confessions that came out of the Reformation. A few points
that should be emphasized:

1 There is a positive, specific decree of God.

2 This decree of God involves specific actions in time,
including, but not limited to, the salvation of a specific
people.
3 This decree is antecedent to creation itself: not only is it
made “before time,” but it is made “independent” of all
such foreknowledge God has of what will take place in
time.8
4 The decree of God predestines certain specific individuals
to eternal life and others it leaves to justice. This is an
election unto salvation and not merely a choice to provide
salvation without any specificity as to the number or
identity of the elect.
5 This decree of election is utterly unconditional. It
involves the election of specific individuals to eternal life
and is based utterly, completely, and totally upon His
“eternal, immutable purpose, which originated in the
secret counsel and good pleasure of His will.”
6 This election is not conditioned upon anything in the
human, either foreseen faith, actions, dispositions, or
desires. It is without conditions.
One will find this concept clearly laid out in the great works of
systematic theology produced by Reformed writers. James P.
Boyce, one of the founding professors of Southern Seminary, a
leading light in the Southern Baptist Convention, put it this
way in his work, Abstract of Systematic Theology:
The latter theory [i.e., the Calvinistic theory, which
Boyce defends and teaches] is that God (who and not
man is the one who chooses or elects), of his own
purpose (in accordance with his will, and not from any
obligation to man, nor because of any will of man),
has from Eternity (the period of God’s action, not in
time in which man acts), determined to save (not has
 actually saved, but simply determined so to do), [and
to save (not confer gospel or church privileges upon),]
a definite number of mankind (not the whole race, nor
indefinitely merely some of them, nor indefinitely a
certain proportionate part; but a definite number), as
individuals (not the whole or a part of the race, nor of
a nation, nor of a church, or of a class, as of believers
or the pious; but individuals), not for or because of
any merit or work of theirs, nor of any value to him of
them (not for their good works, nor their holiness, nor
excellence, nor their faith, not their spiritual
sanctification, although the choice is to a salvation
attained through faith and sanctification; nor their
value to him, though their salvation tends greatly to
the manifested glory of his grace); but of his own
good pleasure (simply because he was pleased so to
choose).
This theory, therefore, teaches that election is:
1 An act of God, and not the result of the choice of
the elect.
2 That this choice is one of individuals, and not of
classes.
3 That it was made without respect to the action of
the persons elected.
4 By the good pleasure of God.
5 According to an eternal purpose.
6 That it is an election to salvation and not to
outward privileges.9
W.J. Seaton defines unconditional election by citing the same
Baptist Confession given above, and then commenting,
The doctrine of unconditional election follows
naturally from the doctrine of total depravity. If man
is, indeed, dead and held captive, and blind, etc., then
the remedy for all these conditions must lie outside
man himself [that is, with God]. We asked in the last
chapter: ‘Can the dead raise themselves?’ and the
 answer must inevitably be: ‘Of course not.’ If,
however, some men and women are raised out of their
spiritual death — ‘born again’ as John’s Gospel puts it
— and since they are unable to perform this work
themselves, then we must conclude that it was God
who raised them. On the other hand, as many men and
women are not “made alive’, we must likewise
conclude that that is because God has not raised them.
If man is unable to save himself on account of the Fall
in Adam being a total fall, and if God alone can save,
and if all are not saved, then the conclusion must be
that God has not chosen to save all.10
Duane Edward Spencer spoke of unconditional election and
put it this way:
As we think of this point we will remember that the
Arminian view is that foreknowledge is based upon the
positive act of man’s will as the condition or cause
that moved God to elect him to salvation. All of the
great confessions, in agreement with the Protestant
Reformers, declare that election is “unconditional.” In
other words, the foreknowledge of God is based upon
His decree, plan, or purpose which expresses His will,
and not upon some foreseen act of positive volition on
the part of man.11
A little later he adds, upon citing Romans 9:11,
Here the apostle declares that the ground of election
is God Himself, which is to say in His will and
purpose, and not in an act of faith or some
“condition” (as Arminians would say) in the children
for good or evil. Election is unconditional. Man can
do nothing to merit it.12
Lorraine Boettner touched upon this subject as well:
The Reformed Faith has held to the existence of an
eternal, divine decree which, antecedently to any
difference or desert in men themselves separates the
human race into two portions and ordains one to
 everlasting life and the other to everlasting death. So
far as this decree relates to men it designates the
counsel of God concerning those who had a supremely
favorable chance in Adam to earn salvation, but who
lost that chance. As a result of the fall they are guilty
and corrupted; their motives are wrong and they
cannot work out their own salvation. They have
forfeited all claim upon God’s mercy, and might justly
have been left to suffer the penalty of their
disobedience as all of the fallen angels were left. But
instead the elect members of this race are rescued
from this state of guilt and sin and are brought into a
state of blessedness and holiness. The non-elect are
simply left in their previous state of ruin, and are
condemned for their sins. They suffer no unmerited
punishment, for God is dealing with them not merely
as men but as sinners.13
As did Edwin Palmer:
But, amazing as it may seem, divine election is
always an unconditional election. God never bases His
choice on what man thinks, says, does, or is. We do
not know what God bases His choice on, but it is not
on anything that is in man. He does not see something
good in a particular man, something that he does that
makes God decide to choose him.14
C. Samuel Storms summarized the meaning of unconditional
election in the same fashion:
It is when the basis or grounds for God’s choice is
discussed that the Arminian parts company from the
Calvinist. As we saw in the previous chapter, the
Arminian insists that God elects men and women on
the basis of what he, from eternity past, knew that
they, in present time, will do when confronted with the
gospel. Thus the basis or ground for being chosen by
God is one’s freewill choice of God. God’s election of
us is, in effect, no more than a divine echo of our
election of him.
 The Calvinist, on the other hand, insists that
election is not grounded or based upon any act of man,
for good or ill. Election “does not depend on the man
who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has
mercy (Rom. 9:16, italics added). That God should set
his electing love upon any individual is not in any way
dependent upon that person’s will (Rom. 9:16), works
(2 Tim. 1:9; Rom. 9:11), holiness (Eph. 1:4), or
obedience (1 Peter 1:1-2). Rather, election finds its
sole and all-sufficient cause in the sovereign good
pleasure and grace of God (Eph. 1:9; Rom. 9:11; 11:5;
Matt. 11:25-26; 2 Tim. 1:9). Were election to be based
upon what God foreknows that each individual will do
with the gospel it would be an empty and altogether
futile act. For what does God foresee in us, apart from
his grace? He sees only corruption, ill will, and a
pervasive depravity of heart and soul that serves only
to evoke his displeasure and wrath.
What this means is that Calvinism is monergistic
when it comes to the doctrine of salvation. This
simply means that when a person is saved it is due
wholly to the working of one source of power, God.
Arminianism is by necessity synergistic, in that it
conceives of salvation as the joint or mutual effort of
both God and man.15
The writings of Francis Turretin remain to this day a
monument to depth of thought and exhaustiveness of
consideration. He represents the period of Protestant
orthodoxy that produced the Westminster Confession of Faith
and other like documents. Note well his words:
The Arminians (who bring popery and Pelagianism
in by the back door) have struck against the same
rock. For although they endeavor with great labor to
prove that they do not make faith the cause of election
(in order to shun the odium of semi-Pelagianism
deservedly charged upon them), still they do not deny
that it is the cause sine qua non or the prerequisite
condition necessary in those to be elected. Yea, not
 obscurely can we gather that they proceed further and
attribute a certain causality to faith, so that God is
moved by its foresight to choose this rather than that
one. Otherwise why would they say so often that
election is founded on the foresight of faith unless
they meant that the consideration of faith influenced
the election of one before another?… Moreover, they
make a twofold decree of election: the first general, of
saving believers; the second special, of saving
individuals by name whom God foresaw would
believe. They hold that no other cause of the first can
be given than the pure will of God, but as to the
second (although it also is founded upon the divine
will), they hold it supposes the consideration and
regard of faith, so that God is moved by it to elect one
rather than another.… This, therefore, is the opinion of
our churches—that election to glory as well as to
grace is entirely gratuitous. Therefore no cause, or
condition, or reason existed in man, upon the
consideration of which God chose this rather than
another one. Rather election depended upon his sole
good pleasure (eudokia) by which, as he selected from
the corrupt mass a certain number of men neither more
worthy nor better than others to whom he would
destine salvation, so in like manner he decreed to give
them faith as the means necessary to obtain
salvation.16
Finally, John Gill laid it out plainly:
This is to be understood of the choice of certain
persons by God, from all eternity, to grace and glory;
it is an act by which men are chosen of God’s good
will and pleasure, before the world was, to holiness
and happiness, to salvation by Christ, to partake of His
glory, and to enjoy eternal life, as the free gift of God
through him, Eph. i. 4, 2 Thess. ii. 13, Acts xiii. 38….
Nor is faith the moving cause of election; the one is in
time, the other in eternity; whilst men are in a state of
unregeneracy, they are in a state of unbelief; they are,
as without hope in God, so without faith in Christ; and
 when they have it, they have it not of themselves, of
their own power and freewill; but they have it as the
gift of God, and the operation of his Spirit, flowing
purely from his grace; and therefore cannot be the
cause of electing grace.17
What do all of these citations have in common? They all
define unconditional election as being without conditions!
Such is hardly surprising except that we are here dealing with
Dr. Geisler’s insistence that unconditional election means that
the choice to save someone is unconditional whereas it is very
conditional on the part of the “recipient” of salvation (it is
conditioned upon the free choice of faith). To call CBF’s
position “moderate Calvinism” is again to completely redefine
the issue. Indeed, let us allow Calvin to speak plainly to the
topic:
We shall never be clearly persuaded, as we ought to
be, that our salvation flows from the wellspring of
God’s free mercy until we come to know his eternal
election, which illumines God’s grace by this contrast:
that he does not indiscriminately adopt all into the
hope of salvation but gives to some what he denies to
others (Institutes III:21:1).
It can safely be said that CBF would never endorse such a
statement.
As Scripture, then, clearly shows, we say that God
once established by his eternal and unchangeable plan
those whom he long before determined once for all to
receive into salvation, and those whom, on the other
hand, he would devote to destruction. We assert that,
with respect to the elect, this plan was founded upon
his freely given mercy, without regard to human
worth; but by his just and irreprehensible but
incomprehensible judgment he has barred the door of
life to those whom he has given over to damnation.
Now among the elect we regard the call as a testimony
of election. Then we hold justification another sign of
its manifestation, until they come into the glory in
 which the fulfillment of that election lies. But as the
Lord seals his elect by call and justification, so, by
shutting off the reprobate from knowledge of his name
or from the sanctification of his Spirit, he, as it were,
reveals by these marks what sort of judgment awaits
them (Institutes III:21:7).
The Reformed position on election is, first and foremost, a
biblical one. Yes, it flows from the sovereignty of God and the
deadness of man in sin; however, it is just as clearly and
inarguably stated in Scripture. So we turn to the biblical text
and CBF’s attempts to respond to those passages that teach
this divine truth.
Notes
1 Chosen But Free, pp. 116-117.
2 Ibid., p. 73.
3 Norman Geisler, Creating God in the Image of Man?
(Bethany House Publishers, 1997), p. 43.
4 Chosen But Free, pp. 46-47.
5 Ibid., p. 47
6 Ibid., p. 77.
7 A Faith to Confess: The Baptist Confession of Faith of
1689, Rewritten in Modern English (Carey Publications,
Ltd., 1986), 3:2-6.
8 Logically by necessity when one considers the issue: if
God’s decree determines what takes place in time it cannot
be based upon that which it creates by its very existence.
This is why Dr. Geisler has to create a new category of
theology with his “knowingly predetermining” viewpoint:
if there is a positive decree that conditions time itself then
the relationship between that decree and the actions of
men is beyond dispute. By saying that we cannot
determine the logical or temporal relationship between the
free actions of man and the decree of God, and by making
God’s “determination” a passive, perfect knowledge rather
than an active, creating decree, Geisler seeks to avoid the
historic confession of the necessity of predestination and
election.
9 James P. Boyce, Abstract of Systematic Theology (1887),
pp. 347-348.
10 W.J. Seaton, The Five Points of Calvinism (The Banner of
Truth Trust, 1970), pp. 11-12.
11 Duane Edward Spencer, TULIP: The Five Points of
Calvinism in the Light of Scripture (Baker Book House,
1979), pp. 29-30.
12 Ibid., p. 30.
13 Lorraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of
Predestination (Presbyterian and Reformed, 1932), pp. 83-
84.
14 Edwin Palmer, The Five Points of Calvinism (Baker Book
House, 1986), p. 26.
15 C. Samuel Storms, Chosen for Life: An Introductory Guide
to the Doctrine of Divine Election (Baker Book House,
1987), pp. 29-30.
16 Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology
(Presbyterian and Reformed, 1992), I:356-357.
17 John Gill, A Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity (The
Baptist Standard Bearer, 1989), pp. 180, 187.
 Chapter 6

CBF’s “Big Three” Verses

Throughout his work, Dr. Geisler quotes a set of three verses

as evidence that God wants to save all men, but is unable to do
so outside of their freely willing it to be so. This set of verses
appear repeatedly throughout the text of the work. They are:
Matthew 23:37, “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the
prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How
often I wanted to gather your children together, the
way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you
were unwilling” (cited eleven times).
1 Timothy 2:4, “who desires all men to be saved and
to come to the knowledge of the truth” (cited ten
times).
2 Peter 3:9, “The Lord is not slow about His promise,
as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not
wishing for any to perish but for all to come to
repentance” (cited twenty times).
These passages are often cited together, or in a pair, in the
work.1 When one excludes the sections of the book that do not
deal with biblical argumentation, one of these verses appears
on average every three to four pages. CBF assumes a
particular meaning for each passage and then utilizes that
interpretation as the primary refutation of any and all passages
that would disagree with the Arminian view. Over and over
again biblical passages will receive no exegesis outside of,
“Well, it can’t mean this, because we know 2 Peter 3:9
says.…” For example, in responding to the clear teaching of
John 6:65, CBF uses two of these three verses as proof-texts:
Moderate Calvinists and Arminians agree with this.
As Sproul himself admits, the real question is, “Does
 God give the ability to come to Jesus to all men?” The
answer is that there is nothing here or anywhere else
to say God limits His willingness to provide this
ability to only some. Indeed, the Bible is clear that He
is patient, “not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone
to come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9), and that He
“wants all men to be saved and to come to a
knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:4; see also Ezek.
18:32).2
But are the interpretations CBF assumes valid? If we find that
the Reformed view can provide a more consistent
interpretation of these passages, the entirety of the presentation
in CBF is undermined, for if these passages do not teach what
the book assumes, its primary foundation is washed away.

Matthew 23:37
CBF offers no in-depth exegesis of this passage. Instead, we
are given two sentences that summarize Geisler’s
interpretation of it:
Also, Matthew 23:37 affirms emphatically that
Jesus desired to bring the Jews who rejected Him into
the fold but could not because they would not. He
cried, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the
prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have
longed to gather your children together, as a hen
gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not
willing.” God’s grace is not irresistible on those who
are unwilling.3
We first note that “irresistible grace” is a reference to God’s
sovereign regeneration of His elect: any other use of the phrase
is in error. Hence, it would seem to be that Dr. Geisler is
promoting the following ideas regarding this text: 1) that Jesus
wanted to save the Jews to whom (or about whom) He was
speaking in this passage; 2) That though this was Christ’s
desire He could not fulfill His desire; 3) Christ could not bring
these Jews into the fold because they “would not.” The
conclusion then is, God’s grace is dependent upon the will of
man. If a man is willing, God’s grace will prevail. But grace
cannot change the will of man.
Of course, these are assertions that are not given with any
interpretational foundation. No exegesis is offered, just
conclusions. How Dr. Geisler arrived at these conclusions, we
are not told. Later we are informed that it is the “plain
meaning” of the text, and are asked rhetorically, “What could
be more clear: God wanted all of them, even the unrepentant,
to be saved.”4
This verse is then used in conjunction with 1 Timothy 2:4
and 2 Peter 3:9 as evidence that it is God’s desire to save every
single man, woman and child on earth. But is that what this
passage is teaching? Let’s provide an exegetical interpretation
of the passage and compare it with the presentation in CBF.
The first fact to ascertain in examining any passage of
Scripture is its context. This passage comes in the midst of the
proclamation of judgment upon the leaders of the Jews.
Matthew 23 contains the strongest denunciations of the scribes
and Pharisees in all of the Gospels.
Who, then, is “Jerusalem”? It is assumed by Arminian
writers that “Jerusalem” represents individual Jews who are,
therefore, capable of resisting the work and will of Christ. But
upon what warrant do we leap from “Jerusalem” to “individual
Jews”? The context would not lead us to conclude that this is
to be taken in a universal sense. Jesus is condemning the
Jewish leaders, and it is to them that He refers here. This is
clearly seen in that:
1 It is to the leaders that God sent prophets;
2 It was the Jewish leaders who killed the prophets and
those sent to them;
3 Jesus speaks of “your children,” differentiating those to
whom He is speaking from those that the Lord desired to
gather together.
4 The context refers to the Jewish leaders, scribes and
Pharisees.
A vitally important point to make here is that the ones the
Lord desired to gather are not the ones who “were not
willing”! Jesus speaks to the leaders about their children that
they, the leaders, would not allow Him to “gather.” Jesus was
not seeking to gather the leaders, but their children. This one
consideration alone renders the passage useless for the
Arminian seeking to establish freewillism. The “children” of
the leaders would be Jews who were hindered by the Jewish
leaders from hearing Christ. The “you would not” then is
referring to the same men indicated by the context: the Jewish
leaders who “were unwilling” to allow those under their
authority to hear the proclamation of the Christ. This verse,
then, is speaking to the same issues raised earlier in Matthew
23:13:
But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites,
because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from
people; for you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you
allow those who are entering to go in.
John Gill added this insight:
That the persons whom Christ would have gathered
are not represented as being unwilling to be gathered;
but their rulers were not willing that they should. The
opposition and resistance to the will of Christ, were
not made by the people, but by their governors. The
common people seemed inclined to attend the ministry
of Christ, as appears from the vast crowds which, at
different times and places, followed him; but the chief
priests and rulers did all they could to hinder the
collection of them to him; and their belief in him as
the Messiah, by traducing his character, miracles, and
doctrines, and by passing an act that whosoever
confessed him should be put out of the synagogue; so
that the obvious meaning of the text is the same with
that of verse 13…and consequently is no proof of
men’s resisting the operations of the Spirit and grace
of God, but of obstructions and discouragements
thrown in the way of attendance on the external
ministry of the word.5
So we can now plainly see that CBF has absolutely no basis
for its assertion that it is the “plain meaning” of the text that
God wanted “all of them, even the unrepentant, to be saved.”
One of the three primary passages used in CBF is seen, then,
to have no connection with the application made of it over and
over again in the text. We turn now to the second.

1 Timothy 2:4
The key to this passage, again, is the context:
First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers,
petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all
men, for kings and all who are in authority, so that we
may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and
dignity. This is good and acceptable in the sight of
God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and
to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one
God, and one mediator also between God and men,
the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom
for all, the testimony given at the proper time.
The first appearance of the phrase “all men” comes at the end
of verse 1, and its meaning is unambiguous. Paul is not
instructing Timothy to initiate never-ending prayer meetings
where the Ephesian phone book would be opened and every
single person listed therein would become the object of prayer.
The very next phrase of the sentence explains Paul’s meaning:
“for kings and all who are in authority.” Why would Paul have
to give such instructions?
We must remember that the early Christians were a
persecuted people, and normally the persecution came from
those in positions of power and authority. It is easy to
understand why there would have to be apostolic
commandments given to pray for the very ones who were
using their power and authority to persecute these Christians.
Who are kings and all who are in authority? They are kinds
of men, classes of men. Paul often spoke of “all men” in this
fashion. For example, in Titus chapter 2, when Paul speaks of
the grace of God which brings salvation appearing to “all
men” (Titus 2:11), he clearly means all kinds of men, for the
context, both before and after, speaks of kinds of men. In the
previous verses Paul addresses such groups as older men (v.
2), older women (v. 3), younger women (v. 4), young men (v.
6), bondslaves (v. 9-10), and rulers and authorities (3:1). No
one would suggest that in fact Paul is speaking of every single
older man, older woman, etc.; he speaks of kinds of people
within a particular group, that being the fellowship of the
Church. Likewise, “rulers” and “authorities” are obviously
generic classifications that everyone would understand needs
to be applied to specific locations in specific times.
The same kind of usage (all kinds of men being in view) is
found elsewhere in Paul, such as Titus 3:2:
to malign no one, to be peaceable, gentle, showing
every consideration for all men.
This should be connected to the fact that in the very
commissioning of Paul, this phrase is used in a way that
cannot be made universal in scope:
For you will be a witness for Him to all men of what
you have seen and heard (Acts 22:15).
Of course, Paul would not think that these words meant that he
would witness of Christ to every single individual human
being on the planet. Instead, he would have surely understood
this to mean all kinds and races of men. Likewise, the
allegation against Paul was that he preached “to all men
everywhere” against the Jews and the Law and the Temple
(Acts 21:28). Paul speaks of kinds of people in other places as
well:
A renewal in which there is no distinction between
Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised,
barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is
all, and in all (Colossians 3:11).
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave
nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you
are all one in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:28).
So it is perfectly consistent with the immediate and broader
context of Paul’s writings to recognize this use of “all men” in
a generic fashion.
Returning to 1 Timothy 2, Paul then states that such prayers
for all kinds of men is good and acceptable “in the sight of
God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come
to the knowledge of the truth.” If we are consistent with the
preceding context we will see “all men” here in the same
manner as “all men” of the preceding verses: all kinds of men,
whether rulers or kings (yes, God even saves people who used
to persecute Christians, a fact Paul knew all too well). But
there is much more reason to understand Paul’s statement in
this way.
Almost invariably, proponents of Arminianism isolate this
passage from the two verses that follow. This must happen of
necessity for the questions that can be asked of the non-
Reformed position based upon verses 5 and 6 are weighty
indeed. Verse 5 begins with the word “for,” indicating the
connection between the statement made in 3-4 and the
explanation in 5-6. Why should Christians pray that all men,
including kings and rulers, be saved and come to a knowledge
of the truth? Because there is only one way of salvation, and
without a knowledge of that truth, no man can be saved. Paul
says, “there is one God, and one mediator between God and
men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for
all.” This immediately takes us into the meat of the discussion
of the atonement, but for now just a few points should be
made.
First, if one takes “all men” in verse 4 to mean “all men
individually,” does it not follow that Christ of necessity must
be mediator for all men as well? If one says, “Yes, Christ
mediates for every single human being,” does it not follow that
Christ fails as mediator every time a person negates His work
by their all-powerful act of free will? One could hope that no
biblical scholar would ever promote such an idea, for anyone
familiar with the relationship between atonement, mediation
and intercession in the book of Hebrews knows well that to
make such an assertion puts the entire argument of Hebrews 7-
10 on its head. For the moment, we simply point out that it is
far more consistent with biblical theology to recognize that
Christ mediates in behalf of the elect and perfectly saves them
than it is to assert that Christ mediates for all (but fails to save
all).
The second point is closely related to the first: the ransom
that Christ gives in His self-sacrifice is either a saving ransom
or a non-saving one. If it is actual and really made in behalf of
all men, then inevitably all men would be saved. But we again
see that it is far more consistent to recognize that the same
meaning for “all men” and “all” flows through the entire
passage, and when we look at the inarguably clear statements
of Scripture regarding the actual intention and result of
Christ’s cross-work, we will see that there is no other
consistent means of interpreting these words in 1 Timothy.
It is tremendously disappointing, then, to turn to the pages
of CBF and examine the assertions made about this passage.
Dr. Geisler is fully aware of the Reformed exegesis of both 1
Timothy 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9 (seen below). It would be
incumbent then upon him to provide as meaningful and
thorough a discussion of the passage as has been provided by
Reformed writers in the past. Instead, we find him providing
responses based upon types of argumentation that are simply
below a scholar of his experience.
The first form of argumentation is found in the repetition of
the phrase “the plain meaning.” Rather than providing
contextual, grammatical, exegetical responses to the arguments
set forth above, CBF chooses to simply mock the Reformed
position and quote Charles Spurgeon (who did not take the
Reformed view of the passage). We are told,
From the time of the later Augustine this text has
been manhandled by extreme Calvinists.6
This is Geisler’s way of admitting that Augustine held the
same view as we have presented above. But to accuse
someone of “manhandling” a text requires more than brute
assertion. And what evidence is given? A quotation of a
sermon by Spurgeon. No response is provided to the
contextual arguments, the parallel uses elsewhere, the
consistency of the passage. Even Spurgeon’s argumentation is
uncharacteristically shallow.
Some attempt is made to deal with 1 Timothy 2:6 and its
reference to a ransom for “all men.” Geisler writes,
Of this and like passages John Owen offers the
dubious view that “all” does not mean “all” here. His
tactic is to divert the issue to other passages where
“all” does not mean the whole human race.7
When Dr. Geisler refers to other passages that are not at all
related to the context, does he see this as a “tactic” in his own
writing? Owen was establishing the fact that “all” is often used
in senses that are not universalistic, and that in fact, it is the
Arminian who must provide a solid ground upon which to
argue that it should be taken that way in any given context.
Geisler is the one diverting the weight of Owen’s exegesis
when he writes, “But here the category and context is the
whole human race, for the use of ‘all’ as an object of God’s
love and redemption is used generically, not geographically.”
To which we simply respond, “Why do you say this?” This is
an unfounded assertion, not an argument of fact. If CBF were
to attempt to offer some kind of meaningful response to the
extensive argumentation found in Owen’s work at this point
(the single chapter to which Geisler refers in Owen’s book
comprises thirteen pages of small type containing numerous
references to the original languages) we might have some
basis upon which to accept these assertions. But we are left
with none. Instead, we read the following:
First, he could have used the word “some,” if he
had chosen to do so, but he did not. Second, his
reference to “men” in verse 5 is clearly generic—
meaning all men, since it is used as the other pole
from God that the Mediator, Christ, brings together.
But generic usages of “all” in a redemptive context are
usually, if not always, of the entire human race. Third,
the desire for “all men” to be saved is parallel with
that same desire expressed in other passages (2 Peter
3:9). Finally, the Bible tells us elsewhere that what
 hinders His desire from being fulfilled is not the
universal scope of His love (John 3:16) but the willing
rejection of some creatures—“you were not willing”
(Matt. 23:37).8
In reply: first, the argument “he could have used such and such
a term” is the weakest that can be offered. Jehovah’s Witnesses
often say “John could have said ‘The Word eternally existed in
the beginning’ if that is what he wanted to communicate.” The
issue is not what a writer might have written, but, what does it
mean in the context as written? Second, we have already seen
that the consistent meaning of “all men” is “all kinds of men”
from the context. We are given no citations, quotations, or
references to substantiate the assertion that “generic usages of
‘all’ in a redemptive context are usually, if not always, of the
entire human race.” Third, as we will see immediately below,
2 Peter 3:9 is misused by Dr. Geisler with regularity. And
finally, as we saw above, Matthew 23:37 does not support
CBF’s use of it here (or anywhere else). We are again left with
the assertion that God’s grace, God’s purpose, and God’s love
is set at naught by the almighty will of the fallen creature.

2 Peter 3:9
This is surely the most popular passage cited (almost never
with any reference to the context) to “prove” that God could
not possibly desire to save a specific people but instead desires
to save every single individual person, thereby denying
election and predestination. The text seems inarguably clear.
But it is always good to see a text in its own context:
Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers
will come with their mocking, following after their
own lusts, and saying, “Where is the promise of His
coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all
continues just as it was from the beginning of
creation.” For when they maintain this, it escapes their
notice that by the word of God the heavens existed
long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by
water, through which the world at that time was
 destroyed, being flooded with water. But by His word
the present heavens and earth are being reserved for
fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of
ungodly men. But do not let this one fact escape your
notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a
thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. The
Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count
slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for
any to perish but for all to come to repentance. But the
day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the
heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements
will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and
its works will be burned up. Since all these things are
to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought
you to be in holy conduct and godliness, looking for
and hastening the coming of the day of God, because
of which the heavens will be destroyed by burning,
and the elements will melt with intense heat! But
according to His promise we are looking for new
heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness
dwells.
Immediately one sees that unlike such passages as Ephesians
1, Romans 8-9, or John 6, this passage is not speaking about
salvation as its topic. The reference to “coming to repentance”
in 3:9 is made in passing. The topic is the coming of Christ. In
the last days mockers will question the validity of His promise.
Peter is explaining the reason why the coming of Christ has
been delayed as long as it has. The day of the Lord, he says,
will come like a thief, and it will come at God’s own time.
But the next thing that stands out upon the reading of the
passage is the clear identification of the audience to which
Peter is speaking. When speaking of the mockers he refers to
them in the third person, as “them.” But everywhere else he
speaks directly to his audience as the “beloved” and “you.” He
speaks of how his audience should behave “in holy conduct
and godliness,” and says that they look for the day of the Lord.
He includes himself in this group in verse 13, where “we are
looking for a new heavens and a new earth.” This is vitally
important, for the assumption made by the Arminian is that
when verse 9 says the Lord is “patient toward you” that this
“you” refers to everyone. Likewise, then, when it says “not
wishing for any to perish” but “all to come to repentance,” it is
assumed that the “any” and “all” refers to anyone at all of the
human race. Yet, the context indicates that the audience is
quite specific. In any other passage of Scripture the interpreter
would realize that we must decide who the “you” refers to and
use this to limit the “any” and “all” of verse 9. For some
reason, that simple and fundamental necessity is overlooked
when this passage is cited.
2 Peter 1:1-3 tells us the specific identity of the audience to
which Peter is writing:
Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus
Christ, to those who have received a faith of the same
kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and
Savior, Jesus Christ: Grace and peace be multiplied to
you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord;
seeing that His divine power has granted to us
everything pertaining to life and godliness, through
the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own
glory and excellence.
Peter writes to a specific group, not to all of mankind. “To
those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours.”
This not only refers to faith as a gift, as we will see in a later
chapter, but it surely limits the context to the saved, for they
have received this faith “by the righteousness of our God and
Savior, Jesus Christ” (emphasis added). There is nothing in
chapter three that indicates a change in audience, and much to
tell us the audience remains exactly the same.
Since this is so, it becomes quite clear that the Arminian is
badly misusing this passage by ignoring what Peter is really
saying. The patience of the Lord is displayed toward His elect
people (the “you” of verse 9). Therefore, the “not wishing any
to perish” must be limited to the same group already in view:
the elect. In the same way, the “all to come to repentance”
must be the very same group. In essence Peter is saying the
coming of the Lord has been delayed so that all the elect of
God can be gathered in. Any modern Christian lives and
knows Christ solely because God’s purpose has been to gather
in His elect down through the ages to this present day. There is
no reason to expand the context of the passage into a universal
proclamation of a desire on God’s part that every single person
come to repentance. Instead, it is clearly His plan and His will
that all the elect come to repentance, and they most assuredly
will do so.
Dr. Geisler is well aware of this interpretation. But he uses
the same kinds of erroneous forms of argumentation in
response to this exegesis of the text so as to avoid its force that
we saw with reference to 1 Timothy 2:4. Again the assertion is
made that CBF’s interpretation is the “plain meaning” of the
text. He writes,
And contrary to the unreasonable view of the
extreme Calvinists, this does not mean “all classes of
men,” namely, the elect from all nations. Words have
limits to their meaning by context. And when “any,”
“all men,” and the “whole world” (1 John 2:2) are
taken to mean only “some” (unless used as figures of
speech), then language has lost its meaning.9
We are not told how it is “unreasonable” to recognize the
contextual clues we noted above. Words do have limits to their
meaning by context, and we have demonstrated that the
context clearly tells us who the “you” and “any” and “all” of 2
Peter 3:9 is.
But most disturbing is the response offered by Geisler to the
exegesis we offered above. Here are his words:
Others offer an even less plausible suggestion: that
“God does not will that any of us (the elect) perish.”
As a firm believer in inerrancy, R.C. Sproul is aware
of how dangerous it is to change the Word of God.
God the Holy Spirit was surely capable of using the
word “some” instead of “all.” But He did not.
Furthermore, the “any” and “all” are called to repent.
Also, the “all” who need to repent cannot mean the
“beloved,” (vv. 1, 8), since they were already saved
and in no need of repenting. In addition, this would
 mean that God is not calling on the non-elect to
repent, which is clearly opposed to other Scriptures
where “he commands all people everywhere to repent”
(Acts 17:30). “All people everywhere” does not mean
“some people everywhere” or “some people
somewhere.” The text speaks for itself.10
Amazingly, the argument begins with the accusation that
recognizing the use of “all” in the sense of “all kinds” is an
implicit denial of inerrancy and runs the danger of changing
the Word of God! Such an accusation is simply without merit.
Saying, “Well, God could have said ‘some’ if that is what he
meant” is a tremendously weak argument, normally reserved
for use when no exegetical argument can be presented. The
fact is that CBF does not even attempt to offer a response to
the arguments drawn from the text itself. There is no
discussion of the grammar, pronouns, or anything else relevant
to the passage, in CBF. Just assertions. Peter limited his use of
“all” and “any” to a specific audience, “you.” This is a fact of
the text utterly ignored by CBF.
Next, it is asserted that the “any” and “all” are “called to
repent.” Actually, the text says that God wills (βουλóμενóς)
for the “all” to come to repentance, and of course, this is quite
true. And since God grants repentance (2 Tim. 2:24-25), God’s
purpose will be accomplished, and is accomplished in the
elect. They all, as a group, do repent. Why anyone would wish
to say “It is God’s will that every single individual repent, but,
alas, His will is constantly thwarted and refuted by the will of
the creature” is hard to say.11 CBF misses the point when it
asserts that this cannot be the “beloved” because they have
already repented. The point of the passage is that God will
bring the elect to repentance throughout the time period prior
to the parousia, the coming of Christ. At the point of Peter’s
writing, the repentance of every single individual reading this
book was yet future.
Next Dr. Geisler confuses the prescriptive will of God found
in His law, which commands all men everywhere to repent,
with the gift of repentance given to the elect in regeneration. It
does not follow that if it is God’s will to bring the elect to
repentance that the law does not command repentance of
everyone. This is a common error in Arminian argumentation.
Dr. Geisler is right about one thing: the text speaks for itself.
But when we actually exegete the text, what it says is the
opposite of what the Arminian assumes it says.
The person inclined to accept the thesis of CBF should
consider this issue well: it is an understatement to say that Dr.
Geisler relies upon Matthew 23:37, 1 Timothy 2:4, and 2 Peter
3:9 as his key Scriptural passages. If, in fact, one can present
an interpretation of each that is at least as valid, if not much
more so, than his own, does it not follow that the vast majority
of the biblical response provided in CBF becomes suspect?
Notes
1 For example, pp. 79, 95, 199-200, 233.
2 Chosen But Free, p. 60.
3 Ibid., p. 95.
4 Ibid., p. 200.
5 John Gill, The Cause of God and Truth (The Baptist
Standard Bearer, 1992), p. 29.
6 Chosen But Free, p. 201.
7 Ibid., p. 202.
8 Ibid., pp. 202-203.
9 Ibid., p. 199.
10 Ibid., pp. 199-200.
11 We do not here refer to the revealed will of God found in
His law which commands all men everywhere to repent:
we speak of His saving will that all the elect come to
repentance, and His ability to perform that will.
 Chapter 7

Jesus Teaches “Extreme Calvinism”

If believing that man is “so dead”1 in sin that he is incapable

of coming to Christ on his own is “extreme Calvinism,” then
the Lord Jesus beat Calvin to the punch by 1500 years with
His preaching in the synagogue in Capernaum recorded in
John 6. Here we have the Lord teaching almost everything
Norman Geisler identifies as “extreme Calvinism.” Jesus
teaches that God is sovereign and acts independently of the
“free choices” of men. He likewise teaches that man is
incapable of saving faith outside of the enablement of the
Father. He then limits this drawing to the same individuals
given by the Father to the Son. He then teaches irresistible
grace on the elect (not on the “willing”) when He affirms that
all those who are given to Him will come to Him. John 6:37-
45 is the clearest exposition of what CBF calls “extreme
Calvinism” in the Bible. And yet, CBF ignores the vast
majority of the passage, offers one response to verse 44 that is
simply incomprehensible, and offers one sentence in response
to verse 45. We have already seen that John 6:37 is cited a few
times, but no interpretation of it is offered.
There is a good reason why CBF stumbles at this point:
there is no meaningful non-Reformed exegesis of the passage
available. As numerous as the attempts of Arminian exegetes
to find some way around the testimony of these verses has
been, not even a plausible solution has been offered that does
not require the complete dismantling of the text, redefinition of
words, or the insertion of utterly foreign concepts. One thing is
absolutely certain: Jesus taught the complete sovereignty of
grace to the people who gathered in the synagogue in
Capernaum nearly two millennia ago. If we wish to honor His
truth, we can do no less.
 Let us listen to Jesus teach “extreme Calvinism” almost
1500 years before Calvin was born in the words of the gospel
of John.

John 6:37-40
All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the
one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. For
I have come down from heaven, not to do My own
will, but the will of Him who sent Me. This is the will
of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me
I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. For this is
the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the
Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I
Myself will raise him up on the last day. (John 6:37-
40)
Despite the richness of this passage, an honest effort will be
made to be brief in providing commentary.2 The setting is
important: Jesus speaks to the crowds gathered in the
synagogue at Capernaum. They have followed Him there after
the feeding of the five thousand the day before. They are
seeking more miracles, and more food. Jesus does not pander
to their “felt needs,” but goes directly to the real issue: who He
is and how He is central to God’s work of redemption. He
identifies Himself as the “Bread of life” (v. 35), the source of
all spiritual nourishment. In our modern setting we might not
feel the force of His words as they must have felt them that
morning. “Who is this man to speak this way of Himself?”
they must have thought. Not even the greatest prophets of
Israel had directed people to faith in themselves! Not even an
Abraham or an Isaiah would claim to have come down from
heaven, nor would they ever say “the one coming to Me will
never hunger and the one believing in Me will never thirst.”
We must attempt to feel the sharp impact of these words just as
they were spoken.
The blessed Lord was quite blunt with His audience. He
knew they did not possess real faith. “But I said to you that
you have seen Me, and yet do not believe” (v. 36). They had
seen Him with their eyes, but unless physical sight is joined
with spiritual enlightenment, it profits nothing. Often the
importance of this statement is overlooked. Verse 36 is a
turning point in the chapter. Jesus now explains their unbelief.
How is it that these men could stand before the very Son of
God, the Word made flesh, and not believe? Anyone who does
not take seriously the deadness of man in sin should
contemplate this scene. The very Creator in human form
stands before men who are schooled in the Scriptures and
points to their unbelief. He then explains the why, and yet so
few today will listen and believe.
“All that the Father gives Me will come to Me.” These are
the first words to come from the Lord in explanation of man’s
unbelief. We dare not engage in hopscotch across this text and
ignore the very order of teaching He provides. The first
assertion is one of complete divine sovereignty. Every word
speaks volumes.
“All that the Father gives Me.” The Father gives someone to
Christ. The elect are viewed as a single whole,3 given by the
Father to the Son.4 The Father has the right to give a people to
the Son. He is the sovereign King, and this is a divine
transaction.
All that are given by the Father to the Son come to the Son.
Not some, not most, but all.
All those given by the Father to the Son will come to the
Son. It is vital to see the truth that is communicated by this
phrase: the giving by the Father to the Son precedes and
determines the coming of the person to Christ. The action of
giving by the Father comes before the action of coming to
Christ by the individual. And since all of those so given
infallibly come, we have here both unconditional election as
well as irresistible grace, and that in the space of nine words!
It becomes an obvious exercise in eisegesis to say, “Well, what
the Lord really means is that all that the Father has seen will
believe in Christ will come to Christ.” That is a meaningless
statement. Since the action of coming is dependent upon the
action of giving, we can see that it is simply not exegetically
possible to say that we cannot determine the relationship
between the two actions. God’s giving results in man’s
coming. Salvation is of the Lord.
But note as well that it is to the Son that they come. They do
not come to a religious system. They are coming to Christ.
This is a personal relationship, personal faith, and, given that
the ones who come are described throughout the passage by
the present tense participle, it is not just a coming that happens
once. This is an on-going faith, an on-going looking to Christ
as the source of spiritual life. The men to whom the Lord was
speaking had “come” to Him for a season: they would soon
walk away and follow Him no more. The true believer is
coming to Christ, always. This is the nature of saving faith.
“And the one who comes to Me I will never cast out.” The
true believer, the one “coming” to the Son, has this promise of
the Lord: using the strongest form of denial possible,5 Jesus
affirms the eternal security of the believer. Jesus is the one
who gives life and raises His own up at the last day. He
promises that there is no possibility whatsoever that any one
who is coming to Him in true faith could ever find Him
unwilling to save. But this tremendous promise is the second
half of a sentence. It is based upon the truth that was first
proclaimed. This promise is to those who are given by the
Father to the Son and to no one else. Of course, we will see in
verse 44 that no one but those who are so given will be coming
to Christ in faith anyway: but there are surely those who, like
many in that audience in Capernaum, are willing to follow for
a while, willing to believe for a season. This promise is not
theirs.
The promise to the elect, however, could not be more
precious. Since Christ is able to save perfectly (He is not
dependent upon man’s will, man’s cooperation), His promise
means the elect cannot ever be lost. Since He will not cast out,
and there is no power greater than His own, the one who
comes to Christ will find Him an all-sufficient and perfect
Savior. This is the only basis of “eternal security” or the
perseverance of the saints: they look to a perfect Savior who is
able to save. It is Christ’s ability to save that means the
redeemed cannot be lost. If it were, in fact, a synergistic
relationship, there could never be any ground for absolute
confidence and security.
Many stop at verse 37 and miss the tremendous revelation
we are privileged to receive in the following verses. Why will
Christ never cast out those who come to Him? Verse 38 begins
with a connective that indicates a continuation of the thought:
verses 38 and 39 explain verse 37. Christ keeps all those who
come to Him for He is fulfilling the will of the Father. “I have
come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will
of Him who sent Me.” The divine Messiah always does the
will of the Father. The preceding chapter in John’s Gospel had
made this very clear. There is perfect harmony between the
work of the Father and the Son.
And what is the will of the Father for the Son? In simple
terms, it is the Father’s will that the Son save perfectly. “This
is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given
Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.” It is vital to
remember that this continues the explanation of why He does
not cast out the one coming to Him. We must see this for some
might be tempted to say that the Father has entrusted all things
into the hands of the Son, and that this passage is saying
nothing more than the Son will act properly in regards to what
the Father has given Him. But the context is clear: v. 37 speaks
of the Father “giving” the elect to the Son, and v. 39 continues
the same thought. Those who are given infallibly come to the
Son in v. 37, and it is these same ones, the elect,6 who are
raised up at the last day. Resurrection is the work of Christ,
and in this passage, is paralleled with the giving of eternal life
(see v. 40). Christ gives eternal life to all those who are given
to Him and who, as a result, come to Him.
We must ask the Arminian who promotes the idea that a
truly saved person can be lost: does this not mean that Christ
can fail to do the will of the Father? If the will of the Father
for the Son is that He lose none of those that are given to Him,
does it not follow inexorably that Christ is able to accomplish
the Father’s will? And does this not force us to believe that the
Son is able to save without introducing the will of man as the
final authority in the matter? Can any synergist (one who
teaches, as Dr. Geisler does, that God’s grace works
“synergistically” and that man’s free will is a vitally important
part of the salvation process, and that no man is saved unless
that man wills it) believe these words? Can one who says that
God tries to save as many as “possible” but cannot save any
man without that man’s cooperation fully believe what this
verse teaches? It is not the Father’s will that Christ try to save
but that He save a particular people perfectly. He is to lose
nothing of all that He is given. How can this be if, in fact, the
final decision lies with man, not with God? It is the Father’s
will that results in the resurrection to life of any individual.
This is election in the strongest terms, and it is taught with
clarity in the reddest letters in Scripture.
Verse 39 begins with “This is the will of Him who sent Me,”
and verse 40 does the same, “For this is the will of My
Father.” But in verse 39 we have the will of the Father for the
Son. Now we have the will of the Father for the elect. “That
everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have
eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.”
Amazingly, many wrench this verse out of its context,
misunderstand the reference to “every one who beholds…
every one who believes in Him,” and say, “See, no divine
election here! Any one can do this.” But it is obvious, when
the text is allowed to stand as a whole, that this is not the
intention of the passage. Who is the one “beholding” the Son
and “believing” in Him? Both these terms are present
participles, referring to on-going action, just as we saw in “the
one coming” to Christ in verse 37. Jesus raises up on the last
day all those who are given to Him (v. 39) and all those who
are looking and believing in Him (v. 40). Are we to believe
these are different groups? Of course not. Jesus only raises one
group to eternal life. But since this is so, does it not follow that
all those given to Him will look to Him and believe in Him?
Most assuredly. Saving faith, then, is exercised by all of those
given to the Son by the Father (one of the reasons why, as we
will see, the Bible affirms clearly that saving faith is a gift of
God).

John 6:41-45
 Therefore the Jews were grumbling about Him,
because He said, “I am the bread that came down out
of heaven.” They were saying, “Is not this Jesus, the
son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know?
How does He now say, ‘I have come down out of
heaven’?” Jesus answered and said to them, “Do not
grumble among yourselves. No one can come to Me
unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will
raise him up on the last day. It is written in the
prophets, ‘AND THEY SHALL ALL BE TAUGHT OF GOD.’
Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father,
comes to Me.
The Jews were grumbling by this point in the dissertation.
They rejected His claim to divine origin, assuming instead that
He was but a mere man, the son of Joseph. Jesus is not turned
from His presentation by their meandering thoughts and
confusion. He instructs them to stop grumbling (v. 43) and
then explains their persistent unbelief.
“No one can come to Me.” Literally Jesus says, “No man is
able to come to Me.” These are words of incapacity and they
are placed in a universal context. All men share this in
common: they lack the ability to come to Christ in and of
themselves. Shared inability due to a shared fallen nature. This
is Paul’s “dead in sin” (Eph. 2:1) and “unable to please God”
(Rom. 8:8). It is the Reformed doctrine of total depravity:
man’s inability taught by the Lord who knows the hearts of all
men. If the text ended here there would be no hope, no good
news. But it doesn’t stop there.
“No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me
draws him.” The good news is that there is an “unless” in John
6:44, just as there is a “But God” in Ephesians 2:4. In both
instances it is not the free will of man that comes to the rescue,
but the free will of God. All men would be left in the hopeless
position of “unable to come” unless God acts, and He does by
drawing men unto Christ. Outside of this divine enablement
(cf. 6:65) no man can come to Christ. No man can “will” to
come to Christ outside of this divine drawing.
 Of course, the immediate response of many is, “Yes indeed,
God must provide some kind of prevenient grace, some kind
of drawing, before any man can choose to believe.” But is this
what the text is saying? Remember that these words come
immediately after the assertion that all that the Father gives the
Son will come to the Son (v. 37). Reformed scholars assert that
the ones who are drawn are the ones who are given by the
Father to the Son: i.e., the elect. They point to the immediate
context which identifies those who come to Christ as the elect.
But the rest of verse 44 explains why it must be so: “and I will
raise him up on the last day.” Who does Jesus raise up on the
last day? Verse 39 says He raises all those given to Him by the
Father; verse 40 says He raises all who are looking and
believing in Him; verse 44 says He raises all those who are
drawn by the Father. The identity of those raised on the last
day to eternal life is absolutely co-extensive with the identity
of those who are drawn! If a person is drawn, he will also be
raised up to eternal life. Obviously, then, it cannot be asserted
that Christ, in this context, is saying that the Father is drawing
every single individual human being, for 1) the context limits
this to those given by the Father to the Son, 2) this passage is
still explaining the unbelief of the Jews, which would make no
sense if in fact the Father were drawing these unbelievers to
Jesus, and 3) if that were so, universalism would be the result,
for all who are drawn are likewise raised up at the last day.
John Calvin is admitted, even by his foes, to have been a
tremendous exegete of Scripture. Fair and insightful, Calvin’s
commentaries continue to this day to have great usefulness and
benefit to the student of Scripture. Here are his comments on
John 6:44:
To come to Christ being here used metaphorically for
believing, the Evangelist, in order to carry out the
metaphor in the apposite clause, says that those
persons are drawn whose understandings God
enlightens, and whose hearts he bends and forms to
the obedience of Christ. The statement amounts to
this, that we ought not to wonder if many refuse to
embrace the Gospel; because no man will ever of
himself be able to come to Christ, but God must first
 approach him by his Spirit; and hence it follows that
all are not drawn, but that God bestows this grace on
those whom he has elected. True, indeed, as to the
kind of drawing, it is not violent, so as to compel men
by external force; but still it is a powerful impulse of
the Holy Spirit, which makes men willing who
formerly were unwilling and reluctant. It is a false and
profane assertion, therefore, that none are drawn but
those who are willing to be drawn, as if man made
himself obedient to God by his own efforts; for the
willingness with which men follow God is what they
already have from himself, who has formed their
hearts to obey him.7
Jesus continues this thought in verse 45, drawing from a
prophecy of Isaiah, and says, “Everyone who has heard and
learned from the Father, comes to Me.” To hear and learn from
the Father is paralleled with being drawn in verse 44. Jesus
would later use the same kind of terminology when He taught
that only those who “belong to God” can hear His words (John
8:47).
In sum, then, Jesus surely taught the absolute sovereignty of
God, the inabilities of man, the unconditional election of a
people unto salvation, the efficient grace of God that infallibly
brings salvation to the elect, and the final perseverance of
those elect into eternal life. It is one of the key texts supportive
of the Reformed position identified as “extreme Calvinism” in
CBF.

CBF’s Response
As with all the other key passages (Romans 8, 9, Ephesians
1, and John 6), CBF offers no contextually-based, careful
exegesis of the passage. We saw in the introduction that John
6:37, while cited, is never discussed. Nothing is said about its
witness to unconditional election or irresistible grace. It is,
simply, ignored. The book’s cover claims to present a
definitive study of the issue of divine sovereignty and free
will. Such would require extensive work on these key
passages. None is offered, and what is offered is not exegetical
in nature.
Only three arguments are provided in the book in response
to John 6:44, and one to John 6:45. Given that the relationship
to the rest of the passage is not even noted, it is not surprising
that the passages are not exegeted contextually. In fact, little is
said about the actual words of the texts. Instead, the plain
meaning is explained away by reference to other passages. We
begin with John 6:44:
Second, John 12:32 makes it plain that the word
“draw” cannot mean “irresistible grace” on the elect
for one simple reason: Jesus said, “ ‘But I, when I am
lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself’ ”
(John 12:32). No true Calvinist believes that all men
will be saved.8
This is the most common response: rather than following the
course of the sermon delivered by Jesus, Arminians
immediately abandon John 6 and cite John 12:32. The
meaning of “draw,” fully discernable from the text of John 6,
is read back from an assumed meaning in John 12. This is a
faulty method of exegesis on many fronts. But even here, the
Arminian’s attempt fails, for John 12:32 does not teach
universalism anymore than John 6:44 does. Note the context
of the passage:
Now there were some Greeks among those who were
going up to worship at the feast; these then came to
Philip, who was from Bethsaida of Galilee, and began
to ask him, saying, “Sir, we wish to see Jesus.” Philip
came and told Andrew; Andrew and Philip came and
told Jesus. (John 12:20-22)
John 12 narrates the final events of Jesus’ public ministry.
After this particular incident the Lord will go into a period of
private ministry to His disciples right before He goes to the
cross. The final words of the Lord’s public teaching are
prompted by the arrival of Greeks who are seeking Jesus. This
important turn of events prompts the teaching that follows.
Jesus is now being sought by non-Jews, Gentiles. It is when
Jesus is informed of this that He says, “The hour has come for
the Son of Man to be glorified.”
This then is the context that leads us to Jesus’ words in
verse 32:
“Now My soul has become troubled; and what shall I
say, ‘Father, save Me from this hour’? But for this
purpose I came to this hour. Father, glorify Your
name.” Then a voice came out of heaven: “I have both
glorified it, and will glorify it again.” So the crowd of
people who stood by and heard it were saying that it
had thundered; others were saying, “An angel has
spoken to Him.” Jesus answered and said, “This voice
has not come for My sake, but for your sakes. Now
judgment is upon this world; now the ruler of this
world will be cast out. And I, if I am lifted up from the
earth, will draw all men to Myself.” But He was
saying this to indicate the kind of death by which He
was to die. (John 12:27-33)
There are two keys to understanding why the Arminian
understanding of this passage is utterly untenable: the first we
have seen in the fact that what prompted these words was the
coming of Gentiles seeking after Jesus. Reformed exegetes
believe that “all men” refers to Jews and Gentiles, not to every
individual person, and the context points this direction. But
even more devastating to the Arminian understanding is a
simple question: does the cross draw every single individual
man? Is that what the Bible really teaches about the cross?
Surely not! The cross is foolishness to Gentiles and a
stumbling block to Jews, as Paul taught:
For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for
wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a
stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, but to
those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ
the power of God and the wisdom of God. (1
Corinthians 1:22-24)
Paul knew this truth just as Jesus taught it: “to those who are
the called, both Jews and Greeks.…” To whom is Christ the
power and wisdom of God? To “the called.” What is the
preaching of the cross to those who are not called? Something
that draws them, or repels them? The answer is obvious. The
cross of Christ is foolishness to the world. These
considerations, along with the immediate context of the
Gentiles seeking Christ, make it clear that Jesus was saying
that if He is lifted up in crucifixion, He will draw all men,
Jews and Gentiles, to Himself. This is the same as saying that
He has sheep not of this fold (John 10:16), the Gentiles, who
become one body in Christ (Ephesians 2:13-16).
Finally, if we read this errant interpretation of John 12:32
back into John 6:44 (and to do so would require some kind of
demonstration that the simple word “draw” must have the
exact same meaning and objects in both contexts, something
CBF does not even attempt to prove) we do exactly as Geisler
asserts: create universalism, but not because the Reformed
view is in error. We have already seen that all who are drawn
are also raised up. Rather than using this argument to
overthrow the plain meaning of 6:44, CBF should see that the
group that is being drawn is not every single individual but the
elect (as indicated by the context), and that the result is indeed
the Reformed view of irresistible grace!
Third, the word “all” cannot mean only some men in
John 12:32. Earlier (John 2:24-25) when Jesus said He
knew “all” men sin, it was clear that He was not just
speaking of the elect. Why then should “all” mean
“some” in John 12:32? If He meant “some,” He could
easily have said so.9
Again, this kind of argumentation is completely fallacious.
First, John says Jesus “knew all men,” not that “all men sin.”
This is a simple misreading of the text. Secondly, CBF makes
no attempt to prove that the phrase “all men” in John 2:24 is to
be understood as synonymous with the use in John 12:32.
Jesus, as God, would “know all men” but it does not follow
that this means the Father must draw all men to Christ nor that
Christ must draw all men to Himself by His death. To know
and to draw are obviously completely different actions. Jesus
knew as a function of deity: the Father chooses to draw as a
function of His freedom. To connect John 2 with John 12 so as
to interpret John 6 should immediately cause any careful
student of the Bible to recognize that we here encounter a
glowing example of eisegesis that comes from an
unwillingness to accept what the text itself teaches. Further,
asking why Jesus said “all” begs the question: if the Reformed
exegete is right and Jesus means “all kinds of men” as in Jews
and Gentiles, and expected to be understood in that context,
why would he then say “some kinds of men”? That would
mean Jesus is excluding some kinds of men, which He does
not. As the heavenly song rightly says of the Lamb,
And they sang a new song, saying, “Worthy are You to
take the book and to break its seals; for You were
slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men
from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.
You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to
our God; and they will reign upon the earth.”
(Revelation 5:9-10)
Christ redeems by His death men from every tribe, tongue,
people, and nation, not some tribes, tongues, peoples and
nations. Hence, the argument has no merit when urged against
the Reformed position.
Thus far then we have seen only an attempt to insert a
foreign meaning into the text on the basis of unsubstantiated
connections with two foreign contexts (John 2 and John 12).
This should be sufficient to warn us that John 6:44 is not being
handled properly. But one last comment is left to be examined
on John 6:44:
Finally, their being drawn by God was conditioned
on their faith. The context of their being “drawn”
(6:37) was “he who believes” (6:35) or “everyone who
believes in Him” (6:40). Those who believe are
enabled by God to be drawn to Him. Jesus adds, “This
is why I told you that no one can come to me unless
the Father has enabled him’ ” (John 6:65). A little later
He says, “ ‘If anyone chooses to do God’s will, he will
find out whether my teaching comes from God or
whether I speak on my own’” (John 7:17). From this it
 is evident that their understanding of Jesus’ teaching
and being drawn to the Father resulted from their own
free choice.
As we will see with Romans 9:16, it is simply amazing that a
passage that is so directly contradictory to the Arminian theory
of free will can be turned into an affirmation of “free choice.”
Of all the statements in CBF we admit that this one is the most
difficult to understand, for it has the least connection to the
subject it is allegedly addressing. Remember that this verse
begins with the phrase, “No man is able to come to Me,” and
yet the first line of response is, “Finally, their being drawn by
God was conditioned on their faith.” This unfounded assertion
has no connection to the text whatsoever, and the attempt to
prove it only compounds the eisegetical error. Given that this
is such a vital passage and the response so indicative of the
inability of Arminian writers to handle it, we will point out
each error as it is presented:
The context of their being “drawn” (6:37) was “he
who believes” (6:35) or “everyone who believes in
Him” (6:40).
Actually, the word “drawn” does not appear in 6:37; instead,
that verse (which received no response in CBF) says the Father
gives a people to the Son, and as a result, those people
infallibly, without fail, come to the Son. This verse definitely
provides an important element of the context: one ignored by
CBF. Next we are told that this context is “he who believes”
(6:35) or “everyone who believes in Him” (6:40). We have
seen that those who believe do so, in this text, because the
Father gives them to the Son. We also have seen that Jesus is
explaining why these men do not believe (6:36) These
contextual elements are ignored by CBF. Instead, the over-
riding assumption of human free will is inserted into the
passage without the first attempt to provide a foundation for so
doing. But this is followed with the most amazing statement in
all of CBF:
Those who believe are enabled by God to be drawn
to Him.
To be honest, this sentence makes no sense. It sounds like it is
saying that being “drawn” to God is not salvific: that is, it is
more like “drawing nearer to God” in devotion or some such
thing. In any case, the meaning surely has nothing whatsoever
to do with the text: obviously, coming to Christ is believing in
Him: they are synonymous in John. So, this passage is not
saying that God “draws” believers into a closer relationship
with Christ. Instead, it is saying that no man is able to come to
Christ in faith unless drawn by the Father, and that all who are
drawn are raised up, for all that the Father gives the Son will
come to the Son in saving faith. This coming is obviously the
act of saving faith, for Jesus says that the one who comes to
Him He will not cast out.
Further, it must be pointed out that there is nothing in the
passage about faith coming before the drawing: the drawing
results in faith. There is nothing in the text about God enabling
men to be drawn. God draws, period. We cannot help but point
out how completely backwards this interpretation is from the
actual text. But we go on:
Jesus adds, “This is why I told you that no one can
come to me unless the Father has enabled him’ ” (John
6:65).
This is actually a restatement of 6:44 with the change of
“enabled” (NASB: “granted him”) for “drawn.” In both cases
the exact same truth is being presented. What is missing in the
citation is the fact that Jesus “was saying” this, using the
imperfect tense, indicating that He was repeating this. The
disciples are walking away, and Jesus explains the mass
defection and unbelief in the same way as before: no one can
come to me unless the Father grants it to him. And we have
already seen the Father grants this to the elect of God alone.
A little later He says, “ ‘If anyone chooses to do God’s
will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from
God or whether I speak on my own’” (John 7:17).
The context of John 7 is completely different, and no attempt
is made to explain why the two verses are relevant to each
other. But this aside, it is evident that the idea is that sinners
can freely “choose” to do God’s will. And just who will
choose to do this? Those who are given by the Father to the
Son. Those who are not of the elect do not even hear His
words, let alone seek to do God’s will (John 8:47). Finally,
From this it is evident that their understanding of
Jesus’ teaching and being drawn to the Father resulted
from their own free choice.
We have no idea how this statement can be logically
connected, even through the most tortuous line of reasoning,
with the text that is being examined. How one goes from “no
man is able” to “resulted from their own free choice” we
honestly cannot say. We cannot even figure out who is being
referred to by the phrase “their understanding.” Is this in
reference to John 6 or John 7? “Understanding teaching” and
“being drawn” are two completely different things from two
completely different contexts, yet they are thrown together in a
confusing conclusion that screams the word “eisegesis.”
CBF fails completely to provide an answer to this glorious
passage that teaches sovereign grace with grand simplicity.
And given the misuse of other passages already cited
(Matthew 23:37, 1 Timothy 2:4, 2 Peter 3:9), it can truly be
said that CBF has no exegetical basis upon which to stand.
Notes
1 Chosen But Free, p. 47.
2 The reader is directed to my brief work, Drawn by the
Father (Crowne Publications, 1991) for a fuller exegesis
of this tremendous passage.
3 The neuter form π ν is used when the entire group is in
view; when each individual person comes into view with
reference to their response of faith the masculine participle
ἐρχóμενος is used, showing the personal element of faith.
4 Two tenses are used by the Lord in this passage: here the
present tense is used, “all the Father gives (δíδωσιν)
Me.…” In verse 39, however, the perfect tense is used,
“all that He has given (δέδωκεν)Me.…”
5 Here the aorist subjunctive of strong denial, οὐ μὴ ἐκβάλω
ἒξω, “I will never cast out.” The idea is the emphatic
denial of the possibility of a future event.
6 Jesus uses the neuter π ν again to refer to the elect as an
entire group, though the fact that this group is made up of
individuals is seen in their being raised to life and in their
individually coming to Him.
7 John Calvin, Commentary on the Gospel of John, The
Comprehensive John Calvin Collection (Ages Digital
Library, 1998)
8 Chosen But Free, p. 93.
9 Ibid.
 Chapter 8

Unconditional Election

We have already lamented the fact that CBF is long on

assertions, but very short on exegesis. Nowhere is this more
true than with reference to one of the key passages that is
central to this debate: Ephesians 1. While Reformed works
present volumes of in-depth work on this section of Scripture,
CBF offers almost nothing in response to this tremendous
passage. The section is referred to eleven times in the work,
but in none of these is any meaningful exegesis offered of the
text. A grand total of eight sentences are offered in response to
this grand passage. There are two main references to this
section of Scripture and its witness to personal, specific
election of a people unto salvation. The first is a passing, but
important, remark.
While attempting to respond to the assertion of Romans
9:16, we read, “All forms of Calvinism and Arminianism
believe that God is the one who initiated salvation, even before
the world began (Eph. 1:4).” Is this indicating that the specific
act of choosing people before the foundation of the world is to
be understood as merely “initiating” salvation? It is hard to
know, though, the context seems to suggest this. As we will
see later, CBF can even find in the words of Paul in Romans
9:16 (“So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the
man who runs, but on God who has mercy.”) the assertion
“this means it is a free act of our will in receiving it,” so
anything is possible. But this seems to come out most clearly
in the specific section where CBF provides an “evaluation of
verses used to support the extreme Calvinists’ view of
unconditional election.” Here is what is said:
Moderate Calvinists agree that there are no strings
attached to the gift of salvation—it is unconditional.
 When election occurred—before the foundation of the
world (Eph. 1:4)—the elect were not even created yet.
God elected on His own, without any conditions that
needed to be performed on the part of the elect.
However, the question is not whether there are any
conditions for God giving salvation; the question is
whether there are any conditions for man receiving
salvation. And here the Bible seems to be very
emphatic that faith is the condition for receiving God’s
gift of salvation. We are “justified by faith” (Rom. 5:1
NASB). We must “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ”
in order to be saved (Acts 16:31 NKJV). “Without
faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone
who comes to him must believe that he exists and that
he rewards those who earnestly seek him” (Heb.
11:6).1
We can hardly be charged with exaggeration when we say that
a work that seeks to provide reasons to “avoid” the historic
Reformed position would have to provide some kind of
meaningful interaction with such a central passage as this. To
dismiss this passage of Scripture with the argument, “Well
sure God chose to save freely, but man still has to believe to be
saved” is to completely miss the heart and soul of the position
being attacked. Immediately after this comment Romans 8:28
is cited, and the response is the same: “That these and like
texts show the unconditional nature of election from God’s
point of view is not challenged. But the question is not
whether election is unconditional from the vantage point of the
Giver but whether there are any conditions for the receiver.”
Keeping in mind Dr. Geisler’s definition of God’s
“predetermination” as a passive thing (perfect foreknowledge),
we can understand what is being said in light of a comment
made shortly thereafter in response to Romans 8:29, “If so,
then God’s foreknowledge would not have any reference to
foreknowing how the elect would respond. But this is not the
case, as our response shows.”2 This is followed by:
And if God does foreknow infallibly, then He would
still foreknow what people would freely believe, and
 He would still have to decide whether He would have
to force them to believe in Him or else elect those He
knew could be persuaded to freely accept His grace.3
No matter how strongly Dr. Geisler denies it, there is no
logical way he can escape one simple fact: his view differs
from the Arminian “election based on knowledge of future
events” viewpoint solely in terminology, not in substance.
CBF attempts to avoid saying it, but it’s there nonetheless:
But the question is not whether election is
unconditional from the vantage point of the Giver but
whether there are any conditions for the receiver.…
Election is not based on or dependent on
foreknowledge. Rather, it is merely in accord with it.4
There is no real difference between saying God elects on the
basis of foreknowledge or in accordance with it if, in the final
analysis, it is the free choice of man, not the free choice of
God, that determines who the elect are! CBF clearly says that
God elects based upon His knowledge that those so elected
“could be persuaded to freely accept His grace.” The final,
ultimate deciding factor in election is the free acceptance of
the human being. This is glaringly obvious. And, it is fully
Arminian.
Another corollary that inevitably flows from this is that if
the decree of “election” is not specific and based solely upon
the will of God, it must become a decree to save based upon
what man does in time, nothing else. That is, it becomes
impersonal. It becomes a decree to save those who fulfill
certain conditions (no matter how many or how few those
conditions might be), not a decree to save anyone in
particular. This comes out in Geisler’s work:
Why, then, does one person go to heaven and another
not? Because God willed that all who receive His
grace will be saved and that all who reject it will be
lost. And since God knew infallibly just who this
would be, both the elect and non-elect were
determined from all eternity. And this determination
was not based on anything in man, including their free
 choice. Rather, it was determined on God’s choice to
save all who would accept His unconditional grace.5
It is vital to understand what is said here, for the wording is
very careful and yet very confusing. Nowhere in this quote, or
in CBF, will you find the elect as individuals being chosen by
God solely upon the basis of His will. Look closely at what is
said: God wills to do what? Save those who receive His grace
and reject all who do not. The will of God in this matter is
impersonal: no particular individual is chosen in this fashion to
be saved. Instead, a plan of salvation is willed. Then, we see
again the centrality of the idea of God “knowing infallibly”
who would, by a free choice, accept or reject Him so that the
elect and non-elect were “determined from all eternity.” But
we must insist that such language does not differ in substance
from the Arminian assertion that God elects on the basis of
foreknowledge, for the denial that there is any logical
relationship between God’s knowledge and God’s
determination has already been seen to be in error. As we have
noted, this “determination” is passive: it involves God
perfectly knowing the free acts of men not decreeing them.
When we keep this in mind we can understand the meaning of
the rest of the statement: the choice to save in general is not
based upon what the elect do, but their particular
participation in that plan is not a part of the decree. God wills
to save those who believe, and who believes is not the result of
the decree but of the “free choices” of men. Again, this is pure
Arminianism.
These facts established, it would be most edifying to
contrast the “explanation” of Ephesians 1 offered by CBF with
a brief exegesis of the actual text itself. Let’s allow the Word
to speak for itself.
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus
Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual
blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, [4] just as He
chose us in Him before the foundation of the world,
that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In
love [5] He predestined us to adoption as sons through
Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind
 intention of His will, [6] to the praise of the glory of
His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the
Beloved. [7] In Him we have redemption through His
blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to
the riches of His grace [8] which He lavished on us. In
all wisdom and insight [9] He made known to us the
mystery of His will, according to His kind intention
which He purposed in Him [10] with a view to an
administration suitable to the fullness of the times, that
is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the
heavens and things on the earth. In Him [11] also we
have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined
according to His purpose who works all things after
the counsel of His will,
Paul begins with a benediction of God the Father, a
pronouncement of blessing upon Him. Why? The rest of the
passage explains why God is so worthy of our blessing. He is
worthy of blessing because He has blessed us with “every
spiritual blessing in the heavenlies.” From the very beginning
the emphasis is upon God and God’s actions. He acts
(blessing) and believers are the recipient of the action. All
spiritual blessings flow from God but they do so only in
Christ. Throughout this passage we will see the phrase “in
Christ” or “in Him” repeated over and over again, all to
emphasize the uniqueness of the Christian gospel, where God
saves men in Christ and in no other way.
Thus: “just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of
the world” (v. 4). God here acts. His act is that of election. The
Greek term ἐξελέξατο means to “choose or select.” God is the
subject of the verb. This is God’s choice. The rest of the phrase
gives us three vital pieces of information: the object of the
choice, the sphere of the choice, and the time frame of the
choice.
The direct object of the verb “choose” is “us,” the first
person plural pronoun. If certain theories were correct we
might expect something like σῴζειν, “to save,” so that the
passage would simply be “God chose to save, or make
salvation possible, before the foundation of the world.” But
instead Paul provides a personal direct object, making the
choice personal and distinct. He chose “us,” not a nameless,
faceless class or group, but “us.” This truth will be repeated
later in the text.
This choice, by necessity, must take place in Christ. Christ
is not the one here chosen, but those who are chosen are
chosen in Christ. There is no election outside of union with
Christ. God saves no one impersonally. All who are elected
will know Christ for they will of necessity be in Him. All who
are elected are chosen in Him. Christianity is not pluralistic
nor syncretistic: it says salvation comes in only one way, in the
Son of God incarnate, in Christ.
But this choice is timeless. It is made “before the foundation
of the world,” before creation itself. The choice is wholly
divine and wholly based upon the will of God for at the time
of the election of us in Christ nothing else but God existed.
Election is wholly of Him.
We then see that this election is surely to salvation, for the
Apostle continues, “that we would be holy and blameless
before Him.” God’s electing grace is purposeful. God saves no
one outside of holiness and righteousness. It is His purpose
that the elect would be perfected by their Savior, the one who
is able to save “to the uttermost” those who come unto God by
Him (Hebrews 7:25).
“In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through
Jesus Christ to Himself.” Again we find God is the subject of
the action in this verse. We are told what God has done, how
He has done it, to whom He has done it, to what end it is done,
and the means used. Specifically, God has predestined. Some
are actually shocked to find the word in the text of Scripture,
but there it is. The word is used six times in Scripture, and
twice in this passage (here and in verse eleven). It refers to
deciding or setting apart “beforehand.” The object fills out its
meaning: “us.” Christians were predestined. Again the action
is personal, paralleling the “election” of verse 4.
But to what were Christians predestined? “Adoption as sons
through Jesus Christ to Himself.” God predestined not simply
a plan but an end, just as we saw in verse 4. Those who are
chosen in eternity are predestined to adoption as sons through
Jesus Christ to Himself. They will experience full and
complete salvation and entrance into the very family of God!
Paul is saying that it has been God’s eternal purpose to adopt a
people unto Himself through Jesus Christ. And since adoption
is always personal (God does not adopt plans nor nameless,
faceless masses of humans, but persons), this is saying exactly
what the Baptist Confession of Faith asserted in the previous
chapter: personal, specific election of the people of God.
It should be noted that at this point all of the verbs in the
passage have had God as their subject. Men have not added an
iota to the discussion outside of being adopted into the family
of God (i.e., saved, and that perfectly). God is the one who is
free in eternity past. He is not controlled by the whims and
will of creatures He has yet to bring into existence.
The next phrase answers many a question of mankind: why
has God chosen to save a particular people? Why is one man
raised to eternal life and another left to eternal destruction?
The Scriptures offer an answer that is satisfying to the
believer, but insufficient for the person unwilling to trust in
God’s goodness. What is the basis of God’s act of
predestination? It is “according to the kind intention of His
will.” Each word is important. It is His will, not our will. And
remember, this is speaking not of some general plan to “save”
so that it is God who “initiates” but man who actuates. This is
the specific predestination of individuals to sonship. The basis
of this specific decree is God’s will. No mention is found of
man’s will.
We need to remember that first and foremost God’s action
of saving man is an act of grace. His will is not some dark and
foreboding thing. The emphasis in Scripture is always on the
wonder that God would save at all, never upon the idea that
God chooses not to save a particular individual, leaving them
to perfect justice. It is the “kind intention” of His will that lies
at the base of His action of choosing a people in Christ.
Why has God created and redeemed? It is “to the praise of
the glory of His grace.” The redeemed heart naturally speaks
of desiring to glorify God. We sing of living so as to bring
glory to God. We know, naturally, that we are to have God’s
glory as our highest goal, our highest priority. So it should not
be at all surprising that the most profound answer Scripture
gives to the question of “what’s it all about” is that it is about
God’s glory. All of salvation results in the praise of the glory
of His grace. All honor, glory, and power belong to Him. Such
is surely the heart-felt sentiment of every believer, yet, our
prayers and hymns are often better than our stated theology.
For salvation to resound solely to the praise of the glory of His
grace there can be not an iota of praise to the creature. Yet, if
we base the success or failure of the entire work of the Triune
God upon the “free choice” of the sinner (rather than the free
choice of the Savior, John 6:37-39, Philippians 2:6-7) then
how can we say that all glory and praise goes to God’s grace
alone? If salvation is in any way synergistic in its ultimate
accomplishment (which is surely the position of Rome, the
Arminians, and all the religions of men), then God’s glorious
grace must share glory with the “free will decisions” of men!
And is it not an empty thing to say, “Oh yes, God’s grace gets
all the praise since without His grace, no one could be saved!”
Is God’s grace to be praised because we can be saved or
because we are saved?
The essential character of grace comes out in the next
phrase: “which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.”
Grace, to be grace, must be free. The ideas of grace and merit
are mutually exclusive. His glorious grace was bestowed upon
us. We did not earn it, “accept it” or merit it. There is a play on
words here that is lost in English translations: the term
translated “bestowed” (ἐχαρίτωσεν) is directly related to the
noun “grace.” In essence, Paul says, “the glory of God’s grace
which was graced upon us.…” And as with all of this, this
grace is only in Christ, here called “the Beloved.” This
transaction took place in eternity past, as the context of this
verse indicates, and as is clearly stated by Paul in 2 Timothy
1:9. Why is this important? Because this grace is specific,
efficacious grace: grace that actually saves (if it isn’t, there’s
no reason to praise God for it). If the elect received this grace
in Christ before eternity, then the Arminian position that God’s
grace is given to all equally and its final effectiveness is left to
the time-bound “free choices” of men is impossible. Is
someone going to seriously suggest that this grace was given,
in eternity past, to those who will abide under the wrath of
God in hell for eternity, and that “in Christ”? Is this not to turn
the text on its head?
“In Him we have redemption through His blood, the
forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His
grace which He lavished on us.” In Christ we (those chosen
from before the foundation of the world) have redemption
through His blood (an assertion supportive of the truth of
particular redemption). This is not a hypothetical redemption
that we somehow “validated” or “consummated” by the
addition of our faith to the work of the cross. When Christ
entered the holy place in heaven He had obtained eternal
redemption (Hebrews 9:12). He had not merely made it a
theoretical possibility, dependent for its efficaciousness upon
the “free will” of the creature.
The extent of the forgiveness is unlimited in that its measure
is the very grace that He has lavished upon His elect. But, if
forgiveness of sins is connected with the election and
predestination of God, obviously it cannot be said that it is
God’s intention to simply elect “to save” and leave the results
in the hands of men. Forgiveness of sins (redemption) is an
intensely personal thing. Christ has forgiven “our trespasses.”
These are specific acts of disobedience, not a general “amnesty
for sin.” The riches of His grace that brings this forgiveness of
sins is “lavished” upon the elect. Are we to believe that this
grace is made “to abound” to every single individual, but,
despite its power and glory, fails to save so many sinners? Or
are we to say that God’s grace is “lavished” only after we
“enable” it by our free-will choice? Quite simply, the
Arminian view finds not even a toe-hold in this granite rock of
sovereign election and efficacious grace.
“In all wisdom and insight He made known to us the
mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which he
purposed in Him with a view to an administration suitable to
the fullness of times, that is, the summing up of all things in
Christ, things in the heavens and things on the earth.” God has
revealed to His people the centrality of Christ, and His
revelation is marked by wisdom and insight. It takes a spiritual
mind to apprehend the revelation God has made of His will,
and obviously, that revelation has been made to His people in
particular. It is the Christian community that longs to see the
summing up of all things in Christ, and prays toward that end.
The centrality of Christ in God’s salvific work, seen in the
repetition of the phrase “in Him” throughout the passage, is
now applied to “all things.” The Savior of believers is the
central figure not only in all of history, but in all of the
universe itself. This truth provides a stark backdrop to the
personal application of verse 11.
“In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, having been
predestined according to His purpose who works all things
after the council of His will.” The NIV renders the first phrase
“In him we were also chosen.” While this is a possible
rendering (and would then parallel the same
chosen/predestined connection in verses 4-5), many
translations see the verb referring to the gaining of an
inheritance as the result of the act of predestination according
to the will of God. This seems to be the best idea. That which
any Christian receives from God in salvation is not due to
anything he or she has done or will do: the inheritance we
receive is due to the predestinating work of God.6 But if we
translate it this way, we also need to see that here Paul begins
to narrow down his scope to his immediate audience, as he
does with finality in verse 12, referring to the Christians of his
generation and day
And upon what basis did God predestine? Again, the idea
that anything in man can function as the basis of God’s
predestination is thoroughly refuted. Predestination is based
upon the divine purpose, nothing else. That purpose flows
from the Sovereign of the universe who “works all things after
the counsel of His will.” This is the Christian confession: God
is sovereign over all things. Nothing is excepted, and most
importantly, in this context, it is beyond dispute that the matter
of human salvation is firmly within the realm of the “all
things” that God’s will determines. Nothing in the text tells us
man’s will is supreme over God’s, nor that God’s purpose is
“after the counsel of the will of man.” God works all things
after the counsel of His will, including His predestining of
men and women to salvation. The result in verse 12 is the
repetition of a vital truth: salvation is all to the praise of His
glory. Any teaching that detracts in the slightest from the glory
of God is not a biblical teaching.
It is clear, then, why Reformed believers understand the
Bible to teach God’s eternal decree of unconditional election.
The few comments above are but a small portion of the
discussion that has been presented by writers and interpreters
who have wrestled long and hard with this passage. If it is Dr.
Geisler’s intention to lead people to “avoid extreme
Calvinism,” that is, avoid the Reformed faith, then he must do
more than offer eight short sentences in response to such
passages as this.

Responding to Particular Biblical Passages

in CBF
As we did when dealing with the assertion of the Arminian
position of “free will,” we now turn to specific biblical
arguments and passages found in CBF.

John 1:12-13
But as many as received Him, to them He gave the
right to become children of God, even to those who
believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor
of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of
God.
In the midst of introducing the Word at the beginning of his
Gospel, John cannot help but speak of the work of the Word in
redemption. He speaks of the rejection of some (1:11) and
contrasts this with the acceptance of others. It is to these, and
these alone, that the right to become children of God is given.
Specifically, those who believe in His name. Then John makes
a statement about the identity and nature of those who believe.
He speaks of the “birth” of believers and specifically denies
certain assertions about their birth. They were not born of
blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man. How
are we to understand these statements? First, to say they were
not born of blood means that the birth spoken of (the new birth
as we see in John 3) is not limited to a certain people or race (a
necessary statement in light of some of John’s day who saw
salvation as race-dependent). Next, “nor of the will of the flesh
nor the will of man” probably refer to the same thing,
encompassing fully by double reference the idea of human
will. Divine birth can have only one origin: God. It is not a
matter of human will, human decision. As Calvin commented
on the passage:
The will of the flesh and the will of man appear to
me to mean the same thing; for I see no reason why
flesh should be supposed to signify woman, as
Augustine and many others explain it. On the contrary,
the Evangelist repeats the same thing in a variety of
words, in order to explain it more fully, and impress it
more deeply on the minds of men. Though he refers
directly to the Jews, who gloried in the flesh, yet from
this passage a general doctrine may be obtained: that
our being reckoned the sons of God does not belong to
our nature, and does not proceed from us, but because
God begat us WILLINGLY (James 1:18), that is, from
undeserved love. Hence it follows, first, that faith does
not proceed from ourselves, but is the fruit of spiritual
regeneration; for the Evangelist affirms that no man
can believe, unless he be begotten of God; and
therefore faith is a heavenly gift. It follows, secondly,
that faith is not bare or cold knowledge, since no man
can believe who has not been renewed by the Spirit of
God.7
Spurgeon, as only he could, put the passage in a context that
speaks volumes:
Now what is your grace in your heart? Did it spring
from the strength of nature? If so, it is but Ishmael, it
will be rejected, it is but the bondwoman’s child, and
will be cast out; but if your piety is the pure gift of
God, an Isaac born when human nature was incapable
 of anything that was good, and when your depravity
could produce nothing that was acceptable in the sight
of God; if it has been granted to you according to the
power of the Holy Ghost, then is it such as shall surely
bring you to heaven. The children of God, then, are
heirs of promise, not heirs by merit, not heirs by their
own will, not heirs by human power. Just in this
manner does John describe believers as “born, not of
blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of
man, but of God.” John 1:13. Here are sharp
distinctions. My soul, canst thou bear them? While
listening to them, dost thou feel no rebellion, but
rather feel a humble desire to sit down at Jesus’ feet
and hopefully say, “I trust I also am a child of the
promise”? Ah! then is it well with thee.8
Dr. Geisler properly understands, and rejects, the Reformed
view of the passage:
According to the extreme Calvinist’s interpretation
of this passage, the new birth does not result from any
human decision or free choice—it is from God.9
Here is the attempted response:
There are at least two serious mistakes in such an
interpretation of this text. First, verse 12 makes it plain
that the means by which this new birth is obtained is
by “all who receive him [Christ].” This involves an act
of free will. Second, this passage is simply denying
that there is any other source of the new birth other
than God Himself. It is not “of” (Greek: ek, out of),
human sources, whether parents, husband, or
ourselves. No one can save us but God. God is the
source by which the new birth is given (v. 13), but free
will is the means by which it is “received” (v. 12). It is
“by” grace but “through” (Greek: dia) faith that we are
saved (Eph. 2:8).
Let’s examine these two “serious mistakes.”
 First, Dr. Geisler, throughout the book, fails to recognize
that Reformed Christians believe that men believe and choose.
It is the order of events that is in dispute. Every Christian has
chosen Christ, believed in Christ, embraced Christ, and even
more, continues to do so. The question is not “must a person
believe,” but can a person believe while a slave to sin?
Further, whose decision comes first: the decision of God to
free the enslaved, dead sinner and give him the ability to
believe, or the freechoice decision of the sinner that then
makes him or her one of the elect?
Dr. Geisler claims, but does not substantiate, that it is the act
of belief that brings spiritual life. As we will see when we
examine regeneration and the gift of faith, this is nothing more
than an assertion that is contradictory to biblical teaching
(especially to John’s writings). If CBF is correct, where is the
connection drawn between the will of man in belief in verse 12
and the spiritual birth of verse 13? Is not birth logically prior
to action? Even though the passage itself says “not of the will
of man,” Geisler can say, “this involves an act of free will.”
Belief is a free-will act, but being born again is not?
But the objection does raise an interesting issue: does the
text itself indicate a relationship between believing and the
new birth? There are certainly some points that Dr. Geisler
would have to consider to make his assertions carry weight:
1) John, as is his custom, refers to Christians as “the
believing ones” (τȎις πιστεύουσιν). English translations
normally miss this important element of John’s gospel (the
contrast between true, saving faith, which is almost always
expressed through the use of the present tense indicating an
on-going, living faith, versus false faith which is almost
always placed in the aorist tense, making no statement about
its consistency or vitality). It is literally, “even to those who
are believing in His name” or “the believing ones (who
believe) in His name.” The term “believing” is a present
participle.
2) The verb “born” (ἐγεννήθησαν) is in the aorist passive
form. In its context it is plainly said to be an act of God. All
human agency is denied.
 3) It follows, then, that verse 13 is a description of “the
believing ones” of verse 12. Nothing is said in the text that the
new birth is “received” by an “act of free will.” In fact, the
exact opposite is stated clearly, “the ones born not of the will
of man.…” It is an amazing example of how preconceived
notions can be read into a text that CBF can say the text makes
the new birth dependent upon an act of “free will” when the
text says the opposite.
The second “error” alleged by Dr. Geisler in the Reformed
interpretation of John 1:12-13 is his assertion that this passage
is “simply denying” that there is any other source of the new
birth other than God. He then asserts that “God is the source
by which the new birth is given (v. 13), but free will is the
means by which it is “received” (v. 12).” The same objection
applies here that was stated above: if a person can have saving
faith without the new birth, then what does the new birth
accomplish? Evidently one does not need the new birth to
obey God’s commands or have saving faith. We certainly
agree with Dr. Geisler that this passage denies, in the strongest
terms, that man is born again through any human means
whatsoever. But there are two problems with Geisler’s
assertion: first, it is not the new birth that is “received” in 1:12,
as he says: it is Christ that is received. If he wishes to say the
two are the same thing, we need more than the mere assertion
of the idea. Second, the idea that the use of the preposition
“ek” somehow limits this to saying God is the “source,” but
we are the agent, is in error. The Greek term “ek” often refers
to direct agency, and surely this is the meaning here. We are
caused to be born by God. The text nowhere even remotely
suggests that John is here speaking of “sources” and not the
actual action itself. The fact that he speaks of the “will of a
man” makes it very clear that he is going far beyond merely
saying “God is the source of the new birth” to saying God is
the one who causes the new birth in contrast to any action of
the will of man.
Hence we see that CBF fails to substantiate its charge of
error against the Reformed interpretation, and instead ends up
making the text say the opposite of its actual intention. We will
see this happen again in the next chapter when we examine
Romans 9:16.

Acts 13:46-48
Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly and said, “It was
necessary that the word of God be spoken to you first;
since you repudiate it and judge yourselves unworthy
of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles.
For so the Lord has commanded us, ‘I HAVE PLACED
YOU AS A LIGHT FOR THE GENTILES, THAT YOU MAY BRING
SALVATION TO THE END OF THE EARTH.’” When the
Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and
glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had
been appointed to eternal life believed.
This passage is not cited in CBF as one that is used by
“extreme Calvinists” and hence requires a response. Instead, it
is listed as a passage that allegedly shows “Salvation: both
ordained to it and persuaded into it.” This idea is based upon
citing Acts 13:48 and then noting that just a few verses later
(Acts 14:1) the disciples spoke “in such a manner” that large
people believed. We would hope that it is not being suggested
that the quality of the apostles’ speech is being credited with
the faith of the multitude: men are not converted by words of
wisdom or the persuasive abilities of any man. Men are
converted when God changes their hearts and draws them unto
Christ.
But Dr. Geisler then adds the following paragraph:
Some moderate Calvinists, like J. O. Buswell, deny
this is a reference to predestination. He wrote,
“Actually the words of Acts 13:48-49 do not
necessarily have any reference whatever to the
doctrine of God’s eternal decree of election.” The
passive participle tetagmenoi may simply mean
‘ready,’ and we might well read, ‘as many as were
prepared for eternal life, believed.’ ” He adds,
“Commenting on this word, Alford says, ‘The
meaning of this word must be determined by the
 context. The Jews had judged themselves unworthy of
eternal life (v. 46); the Gentiles, “as many as were
disposed to eternal life,” believed.…To find in this
text preordination to life asserted, is to force both the
word and the context to a meaning which they do not
contain.’ ” 10
We commend Dr. Geisler for his very conditional presentation
of this argument. It is clear that he is well aware that this
viewpoint has a mountain of argumentation going against it.
First and foremost is the fact that the passage is not translated
as “made ready” or “were disposed to” in any of the major
modern Bible translations:
and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.
(KJV, 1611)
and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.
(ASV, 1901).
And as many as had been appointed to eternal life
believed. (NKJV, 1982)
and all who were appointed for eternal life believed.
(NIV, 1984)
and as many as had been destined for eternal life
became believers. (NRSV, 1989)
and as many as had been appointed to eternal life
believed. (NASB Update, 1995)
and all who were appointed to eternal life became
believers. (NLT, 1996)
and all who had been appointed for eternal life
believed. (NET, 1998)
Some have gone so far as to suggest that the participle
τεταγμένοι be translated in the middle voice, “considered
themselves worthy,” and the above assertions seem to parallel
that thought, at least in the results.
But what motivates such interpretation? Surely there is
nothing in the text to do so. Luke uses this verb, in the passive,
to clearly mean “appoint” elsewhere. For example:
“And I said, ‘What shall I do, Lord?’ And the Lord
said to me, ‘Get up and go on into Damascus, and
there you will be told of all that has been appointed
(τέτακταί) for you to do.’ (Acts 22:10)
No one would suggest that we should understand this to mean
“you will be told of all that you have appointed yourself to do”
or “all you have judged yourself worthy of doing.” The same
is true in Acts 28:23, where they “set a day” for Paul’s hearing,
again using the passive form of the same verb. Paul was not
“disposed toward” a date, he was appointed a date.11
But there is a grammatical reason why the normal
translation and understanding of this passage should be
accepted (along with the resultant meaning). The term
“appointed” here is found in what is called a periphrastic
construction. A periphrastic construction involves the use of a
participle with a form of the Greek verb of being, είμί. By
combining different tenses of both elements, a particular result
is achieved. In this case, Luke uses the imperfect form of eimi
together with the perfect passive participle. The result is that
the phrase must be translated as a “pluperfect.”12
A pluperfect sense speaks of a completed action in the past,
but unlike the perfect tense, the pluperfect does not contain the
idea of a continuation of the past action into the present time.
Therefore, the meaning of “appointed” refers to a past action.
How can this be if, in fact, we are to understand this as an
attitude in the Gentiles who have just heard that the gospel is
coming to them? Obviously, to take it in the sense suggested
by Buswell or Alford is to understand this action as something
that takes place at the very point where the Apostles quote
from Isaiah and proclaim that the Gentiles can receive the
blessings of the gospel. Luke writes, “When the Gentiles heard
this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the
Lord.” How can we think that prior to this they had somehow
judged themselves worthy of eternal life? Instead, the most
natural way to take the text is to see this as Luke’s explanation
of why some who heard believed while others did not: the
difference was not that some were better or more “disposed”
toward the gospel than others (the very idea of someone being
disposed toward the gospel is utterly contrary to Paul’s
teaching in Romans 8:7-8): the difference is that some were
appointed to eternal life as part of the eternal decree of God,
and others were not.
The same is true today. The person who proclaims the
gospel with purity and power can trust that God will save His
elect. Likewise, we know that others will laugh and mock no
matter how clearly or forcefully we present the truth.
In reality the only reason people suggest that the term be
taken in such an unusual manner is because they do not wish
to accept the teaching of the passage, for it makes it very clear
that it is not our presentation, not our skills, not our preaching
that brings men to repentance (all can be used by God, but all
can likewise come to naught): as many as were appointed by
the Lord believed, for faith is, as we will prove later in this
work, the divine gift of God given to His elect people.

Matthew 11:25-27
At that time Jesus said, “I praise You, Father, Lord of
heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things
from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them
to infants. Yes, Father, for this way was well-pleasing
in Your sight. All things have been handed over to Me
by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the
Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the
Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal
Him.”
This section of Scripture comes right after an announcement of
judgment upon the cities in which Jesus had worked mighty
miracles and yet there was no repentance. In what must strike
the Arminian ear in a most unusual way, Jesus responds to this
wholesale rejection by thousands of individuals He allegedly
was doing all He could to save by praising His Father that He
(the Father) had in fact hidden these things from the wise and
prudent and revealed them to babes! He affirms that this is
God’s plan and it is pleasing in God’s sight. This provides the
preceding context for the key verse, 11:27.
Jesus affirms His own deity in this passage of Scripture and
His unique role as the only revealer of the Father (John 1:18).
Not only have all things been entrusted to the Son (no mere
creature could be given “all things”), but the Person of the Son
is so great, so magnificent that only the infinite Person of the
Father can know Him truly. There is a reciprocal truth: to
perfectly reveal the Father requires a perfect, infinite Person:
the Son. Jesus is the revealer of the Father. He is the only one
capable of so doing. And, He does so not because He must do
so but because He chooses to do so.
Who then can know the Father? Every single person who
chooses to do so by an act of free will, as CBF suggests? No,
this revelation is specific for it is by Christ and in Christ alone.
It is to the elect, chosen in Him before time began, that Christ
makes the wonderful revelation of the Father. Christ chooses
to make this revelation. He is the one who is free.
The verses that follow are often used to attempt to
overthrow the specificity of Christ’s revelation of the Father.
“Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy laden, and I will
give you rest” the Lord says. “See,” the Arminian says, “this is
a general call to all people, not just the elect.” A general call it
is, but who is it that knows they are weary and heavy laden? Is
the unregenerate man, who is at enmity with God, dead in sin,
going to be seeking rest by coming to Christ? While the lost
seek their rest in the world’s pleasures or religions, the elect
seek it in the only place it can be found: in Christ.
CBF seeks to explain Matthew 11:27 as follows:
God chooses only to reveal Himself personally to the
willing. Jesus said, “ ‘If anyone chooses to do God’s
will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from
God or whether I speak on my own’ ” (John 7:17). It
is noteworthy also that it does not say that Jesus
wishes only to reveal the Father to some. Indeed, God
desires all to be saved (Matt. 23:37, 2 Peter 3:9).13
We have already seen that Dr. Geisler’s use of Matthew 23:37
and 2 Peter 3:9 is in error. Further, we should note that
elsewhere in his book Dr. Geisler criticizes Reformed exegetes
for citing passages “from another book, in another context,”14
yet, this is exactly what he does here. Next, is it Geisler’s
position that it is the Son’s desire to reveal the Father to every
single individual on earth? Then does it not follow that Christ
has failed in this task, if, indeed, this is a salvific revelation of
the Father?
Very little in CBF’s response actually addresses the passage.
The assertion that God chooses only to reveal Himself to the
willing is based upon the errant interpretation of Matthew
23:37. John 7:17 is a completely different context and has
nothing to do with Matthew 11. That passage does not posit a
free will in man, but simply states that anyone who is willing
will know the truth of Christ’s teaching. And who knows this
but the redeemed? Does not every Christian desire to know of
the truthfulness of Christ’s teaching? This is descriptive of the
believer, not prescriptive of how one becomes a believer.

John 5:21
For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them
life, even so the Son also gives life to whom He
wishes.
This passage is very similar to Matthew 11:27. The deity of
Christ is plainly implied in grand terms, for only God is able to
give life, and this ability is the Son’s as well. He is able to
“give life to whom He wishes.” Literally the text says, “He
enlivens whom He wishes.” The verb (ζῳοποιε ) is active.
This is something the Son does, and the objects of the active
verb are human beings raised to spiritual life. It is a free act of
the will of the Son that brings life. The Arminian would have
to limit this to saying that Christ freely wills to save based
upon the action of faith in man. Again the object of God’s
choice would be a plan, not a person. But this is not what the
text says. Christ gives life to whom He wills (θέλει), not to
those who first will it thus allowing Him to save.
 Commentators recognize that this passage speaks of God as
the source of both physical life as well as spiritual life. The
words spoken are true both of the raising to physical life in the
resurrection as well as the giving of spiritual life in
regeneration. This may be indicated by the use of two verbs in
5:21, “to raise up” (the normal term for raising the dead) and
“to make alive.” A diverse body of exegetes confirm this dual
application of the words of Jesus in 5:21, such as Leon
Morris,15 B.F. Westcott,16 William Hendrikson,17 J.H.
Bernard,18 Henry Alford,19 not to mention the great body of
older Puritan and Reformed exegetes (Spurgeon included),
going back to Calvin’s assertion. That there is spiritual life in
view is Calvin’s position. He wrote, “Again, he does not speak
of this life as bestowed indiscriminately on all; for he says that
he giveth life to whom he will; by which he means that he
especially confers this grace on none but certain men, that is,
on the elect.”20 We can go all the way back to Augustine in
A.D. 415 who commented on this passage,
Our Lord, for instance, raised Lazarus; He
unquestionably was able to do so. But inasmuch as He
did not raise up Judas, must we therefore contend that
He was unable to do so? He certainly was able, but He
would not. For if He had been willing, He could have
effected this too. For the Son quickeneth whomsoever
He will.21
So how does CBF handle this passage? Interestingly, it does so
in the context of denying particular redemption, not
unconditional election. As we will see when we discuss the
atoning work of Christ, the vast majority of Arminian
objections to particular redemption are actually confused
objections to unconditional election. The same is true here.
CBF notes that this passage is sometimes used by Reformed
writers “in an attempt to prove limited atonement whereby
Christ gives spiritual life only to the elect.”22 But this is
clearly an objection against the sovereignty of God in saving
only the elect, not to the belief that it was Christ’s intention to
save the elect perfectly in His death. We note the reasoning
provided by CBF:
 First of all, if this interpretation were true it would
contradict the clear teaching of other texts in John
(John 3:16) and elsewhere (1 John 2:2, 2 Peter 2:1).
We are left to assume CBF’s interpretation of these passages.
In essence, it is being said “it can’t be saying Christ gives life
only to the elect since we already believe these other verses
teach differently.”
John 3:16 is cited by CBF over and over again as indication
that there is no particularity to God’s work of salvation. The
idea that the term “world” could possibly mean anything other
than every single individual (despite the fact that all serious
exegetes recognize a wide variety of uses of this term in the
New Testament and especially in John’s writings, for example,
John 17:9 and 1 John 2:15) is simply dismissed by CBF on
numerous occasions. Furthermore, the common misconception
that John 3:16 uses an indefinite phrase, “whosoever,” is
presented as evidence against the particularity of God’s work
of redemption. However, anyone familiar with the text as it
was written knows that the literal rendering of the passage is
“in order that every one believing in him should not perish but
have eternal life.” The verse teaches that the giving of the Son
guarantees the salvation of all the believing ones. Sound
exegetical practice requires us to then ask, “Does Jesus speak
to who will, and who will not, believe?” The answer is yes, He
does, in such passages as John 6:37-45.
We will look at the other passages under the topic of the
atonement. Geisler continues:
Second, the use of “just as” in this text indicates the
Son is doing the same thing as the Father, and the
Father “raises the dead.” So it is not a reference to
salvation but to resurrection of the dead. Finally, the
resurrection in this very chapter of John refers to “all
who are in the graves” (5:28), both saved and unsaved
(v. 29). Hence, the resurrection life given is not
limited to the elect: both saved and unsaved are
resurrected.
The attempt to limit this passage to merely the resurrection of
the dead leads to a tremendous problem for CBF. Are we to
believe, then, that John 5:24 does not refer to salvation? This
passage is closer in context than verses 28-29, cited by
Geisler:
Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and
believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does
not come into judgment, but has passed out of death
into life.
Is it not the common view of Protestant exegetes in general
that the use of the present tense “has eternal life” in 5:24
means we have this life now as a present possession? While
5:24 is not referenced in CBF, Dr. Geisler sees it as a reference
to salvation (not just resurrection) in his Baker Encyclopedia
of Christian Apologetics,23 so if he is consistent, surely the
attempt to say that Christ refers here only to physical
resurrection must be rejected in light of the proximity of verse
24.
But more importantly, CBF’s assertion empties the passage
of any meaning. What does it mean that Christ “gives life to
whom He wishes” when this simply means that Christ engages
in the work of resurrection? Will not all be resurrected, some
to a resurrection of life and others to a resurrection of
judgment? How is the freedom of Christ to be expressed here?
But it is just this divine freedom, so clearly stated in John
5:21, that is denied by CBF. To safeguard the freedom of man,
the freedom of Christ must be limited so that He does not give
spiritual life to those whom He wills, but instead is limited to
engaging in the resurrection of the dead prior to judgment
only. This is obviously an artificial and erroneous view of the
passage.

Romans 8:28-30
And we know that God causes all things to work
together for good to those who love God, to those who
are called according to His purpose. For those whom
 He foreknew, He also predestined to become
conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would
be the firstborn among many brethren; and these
whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom
He called, He also justified; and these whom He
justified, He also glorified.
Few texts of Scripture are so clear, so forceful, in asserting the
absolute freedom of God in saving His elect people than these.
Every attempt to undermine their testimony truly rings hollow.
Simple fairness drives the mind to recognize that these verses
speak of God’s work, not man’s. God saves, from beginning to
end.
Providing an exegesis of this text would be superfluous, as
so many fine examples exist. The reader is directed to the
work of John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans24 for an
example of the ease with which the Reformed exegete can
work with this text by simply allowing it to speak for itself.
We are truly on “home court” in Romans 8 and 9.
How does CBF attempt to defuse this keystone of the
Reformed faith? One should not be surprised that a slight
variant of the classic Arminian approach is utilized. In
essence, the effort (which, outside of Romans 9, receives the
longest block of text in the book, almost a full three pages)
provides not a scintilla of exegetical comment on verse 28.
The attempted response to verse 29 focuses upon denying that
“foreknown” carries the concept of “fore-loved” or “chosen.”
But the entire effort is summarized in these words:
For the question still remains as to whether God
ordained an act of free choice as a means of receiving
His unconditional grace.25
We have now seen this tactic repeated many times: did God
ordain people to salvation or a plan? We have seen over and
over that the direct object of the words used to describe God’s
work is personal. People are predestined, people are chosen
before the world begins, not acts, not plans, not possibilities.
This remains the central error of CBF’s argumentation: the
unbiblical replacement of the personal element of the electing
grace of God with a philosophically derived, eisegetically
inserted idea of God’s ordination of a plan that is dependent
upon the actions of man for fruition and success.
In verse 28 Paul identifies those who love God as those who
“are called according to His purpose.” The word “His” is
provided for clarity, for it is literally, “called according to
purpose.” We have seen the call and purpose of God extolled
in Ephesians 1. Throughout the passage God is active, calling,
predestining, justifying, glorifying. Man is the object of
redemption (praise God!), but man in no way rules over it,
determines its success, adds to its work, or intrudes on God’s
glory.
If a man or woman truly loves God (not a god of their own
making or their own image, but the true God of the Bible,
including all those truths of His being and character that are
the most reprehensible to the natural man), that person has
been called by God in accordance with His purpose. Indeed,
true love for the true God is one of the surest signs of
regeneration and redemption.
CBF does not interact with the text of Romans 8:28.
Instead, it immediately devolves into the assertion that election
and predestination are “in accordance with” foreknowledge.
We have already seen what this means and the fact that
Geisler’s position, while denying election based on
foreknowledge presents election in accordance with
foreknowledge. But to substantiate this position he must
believe that “to foreknow” in 8:29 has the same meaning as
the philosophical use of the term. If we find that in this
passage foreknowledge does not refer to God’s perfect
knowledge of the events of the future, including the free acts
of human beings, then it can be said that CBF offers no
response to this passage at all. Geisler realizes this, for he
accurately describes the Reformed understanding:
Many extreme Calvinists take “foreknown” to refer
to the fact that God foreloved. In this case, to
foreknow and to choose or elect would be the same
thing. They cite other passages in attempts to support
this (e.g., Deut. 7:7-8; Jer. 1:5; Amos 3:2; Matt. 7:22-
 23). If so, then God’s foreknowledge would not have
any reference to foreknowing how the elect would
respond.26
The key is found in the final phrase: for CBF’s position to hold
it must be proven that “foreknown” in this passage cannot, and
does not, mean anything that would conflict with the idea of
God knowing the free acts of men.
Without repeating work that has been done elsewhere,27 let
us summarize the position of Reformed exegetes on the
meaning of “foreknow.”
1 The primary passages that should inform our understanding
of the term are those that have God as the subject of the
verbal form, as here. Obviously, passages that have humans
as the subject would differ, substantially, in their meaning,
for God’s knowledge is vastly different than man’s.
2 The verb προγινώσκω is used three times in the New
Testament with God as the subject: Romans 8:29, Romans
11:2, and 1 Peter 1:20.
3 The key issue (normally unaddressed by Arminian writers)
lies in the objects of God’s action of “foreknowing.” What,
or who, is “foreknown” by God? In Romans 8:29 the direct
object of the verb is a pronoun that refers back to the elect
of verse 28. In Romans 11:2 the object is “His people.” And
in 1 Peter 1:20 the object is Christ.
4 Every time God is portrayed as “foreknowing” the object of
the verb is personal.
5 Therefore, to say that God foreknows acts, faith, behavior,
choices, etc. is to assume something about the term that is
not witnessed in the biblical text. God foreknows persons
not things.
6 This New Testament usage then decides for us which
elements of the Old Testament stream most informs these
passages. That is, the Hebrew term yada ( ) is used in
many different ways. Is there a discernable usage in the Old
Testament that comes through to the New Testament that
would see this as an action that has only persons as its
 object? The answer is a definite yes. Here are some of the
key passages where the very same element of personal
choice and knowledge is a part of God’s “knowing” in the
Old Testament:
Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And
before you were born I consecrated you; I have
appointed you a prophet to the nations. (Jeremiah 1:5)
Here God’s knowledge of Jeremiah is clearly personal. It is
paralleled with the term “consecrated” and “appointed,”
pointing us toward the element of “choice.” This knowledge of
Jeremiah is not limited to time. In some manner, God “knew”
Jeremiah before Jeremiah came into existence.
The LORD said to Moses, “I will also do this thing of
which you have spoken; for you have found favor in
My sight and I have known you by name.” (Exodus
33:17)
This tremendous passage (which Paul draws upon in Romans
9) reveals the very personal aspect of God’s “knowing” of an
individual. Obviously the Lord is not revealing to Moses, “I
know your name!” This “knowing” is intimate, personal, and
is connected with the fact that Moses “found favor” in the
sight of God. This is a gracious knowing, a gracious choosing
of Moses to receive the benefits of God’s mercy.
You only have I chosen among all the families of the
earth;
Therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.”
(Amos 3:2)
Here the NASB actually translates yada as “chosen,” so
strongly is this element found in the context of this passage.
Literally it says, “You (speaking of Israel) only have I
known.…” Obviously God is not denying knowledge of the
mere existence of other nations and peoples. There is a special
element to this “knowing,” an element of gracious choice.
Indeed, so personal and intimate can be the use of yada that it
is said in Genesis 4:1 that when Adam “knew” his wife, the
result was a child.
 Therefore, the use of the verbal concept of “foreknowing” in
the New Testament, together with these testimonies from the
Old Testament, are more than sufficient basis for asserting that
when Paul says “and those whom He foreknew” Paul is
speaking about an action on God’s part that is just as solitary,
just as God-centered, and just as personal as every other action
in the string: God foreknows (chooses to enter into
relationship with); God predestines; God calls; God justifies;
God glorifies. From first to last it is God who is active, God
who accomplishes all these things. It is the burden of the
Arminian to break this “golden chain of redemption,” prove to
us that God’s foreknowing is a mere passive gathering of
infallible knowledge of the future actions of free creatures, and
establish that this passage is not telling us that all of salvation,
from initiation to accomplishment, is the work of God for His
own glory.
CBF attempts to maintain its Arminian viewpoint by
stating:
First, even if this is true, it is irrelevant, since
extreme Calvinists believe in God’s infallible
foreknowledge (cf., Isa. 46:10) regardless of what
these verses teach. And if God does foreknow
infallibly, then He would still foreknow what people
would freely believe, and He would still have to
decide whether He would have to force them to
believe in Him or else elect those He knew could be
persuaded to freely accept His grace.
We have seen this quotation before, and it again establishes the
non-Reformed character of CBF. The passage is filled with
errors. It does not use “foreknow” in the sense we have just
established. It speaks of God deciding to “force” people to
believe (rather than the Reformed position that speaks of
God’s gracious deliverance of them from sin, the renewing of
their heart, the granting of spiritual life, the giving of the gifts
of faith and repentance). And it again shows its fully Arminian
view of salvation by making God’s act of predestination
dependent upon the pliability of men, those who “could be
persuaded to freely accept His grace.” Rather than a grace that
changes dead sinners, we have a grace that requires the free
will of man for its effectiveness.
Then Dr. Geisler attempts to dissuade his readers from
understanding “foreknow” as we have presented it above. But
his argumentation is seriously deficient. In fact, he engages in
the very activity he (errantly) accuses Reformed writers of
doing when they seek to establish that such words as “all” and
“world” can have specific meanings in specific contexts. He
establishes that “to know” can be used with no personal
element (i.e., to know simple facts). No one disputes the
assertion. No one has said “The Greek word ginosko always
has this one meaning.” The assertion is that when it is used of
God in particular contexts in the Old Testament it carries this
meaning, and that in every usage in the New Testament it does
so. Next, he establishes that ginosko “usually” does not mean
“choose.” Again, this is a point not in dispute (though an entire
paragraph is dedicated to the demonstration). Finally he proves
that even the specific verb, proginosko, is used “in reference to
advanced knowledge of events.” Unfortunately he errs and
gives only references that have men as the subject of the verb,
not the ones that have God as the subject. Yet, after all these
irrelevant or errant efforts, CBF concludes, “Thus, the extreme
Calvinist’s equating of foreknowing and foreloving does not
follow.” This is then followed by even more argumentation
that is again irrelevant to the actual issue:
Finally, the word “chosen” by God is used of persons
who are not the elect. Judas, for example, was
“chosen” by Christ but not one of the elect: “Jesus
replied, ‘Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one
of you is a devil!’ ” (John 6:70). Israel was chosen as a
nation, but not every individual in Israel will be
saved.28
Of course the word “chosen” is used in more than one way. No
one is arguing that “chosen” always has the same meaning.
Instead, the issue is, does “chosen” mean elect in the context
of the passages that we have examined? And the answer to that
has already been seen: it does.
 There remains one key passage that, due to its importance
and the length of the attempted response by CBF, deserves its
own chapter. That is Paul’s teaching found in Romans chapter
9.
Notes
1 Chosen But Free, pp. 67-68.
2 Ibid., p. 69.
3 Ibid., p. 70.
4 Ibid., p. 68.
5 Ibid., p. 179.
6 As with all else we have seen, we must insist that it is not
the mere opportunity of being saved, or receiving an
inheritance if we will do certain things (whether those be
“good works in a state of grace” or the mere free choice
act of faith) that is in view here. There is all the difference
in the world between an actual work that brings glory to
God and a potential work that can be set at naught by the
supreme will of the creature.
7 John Calvin, Commentary on the Gospel According to
John (Baker Book House, 1984), p. 43.
8 “A Strong Consolation” preached 9/26/1869, The Charles
H. Spurgeon Library CD ROM (Ages Digital Library,
1998).
9 Chosen But Free, p. 58
10 Ibid., p. 41.
11 See also Romans 13:1 where the same kind of term is used
to clearly mean “appointed.”
12 For a summary of periphrastic translations, see William
Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek (Zondervan, 1993), pp.
276-277 and Daniel Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the
Basics (Zondervan, 1996), pp. 647-649.
13 Chosen But Free, p. 72.
14 Ibid., p. 193.
15 Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John (Eerdmans,
1971), pp. 314-315. Morris actually asserts that the primary
application of Jesus’ words in 5:21 is in reference to the
giving of life in the current time period, with the later
resurrection being only in the background.
16 Brooke Foss Westcott, The Gospel According to John
(Baker Book House, 1980), p. 191.
17 William Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary:
Exposition of the Gospel According to John (Baker Book
House, 1953), p. 199.
18 J.H. Bernard, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on
the Gospel According to St. John (T&T Clark, 1985), p.
241.
19 Henry Alford, The New Testament for English Readers Vol.
II (Baker Book House, 1983), p. 507. It should be noted
that Alford denies that the “whom He wills” involves any
particularity, though Alford provides no sound reasoning as
to why this is.
20 John Calvin, Commentary on the Gospel of John, (Baker
Book House, 1984), p. 200.
21 Augustine, On Nature and Grace, 2:8.
22 Chosen But Free, p. 78.
23 Norman Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian
Apologetics (Baker Book House, 1999), pp. 361, 491.
24 John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans (Eerdmans, 1997),
pp. 314-321.
25 Chosen But Free, p. 71.
26 Ibid., p. 69.
27 I have addressed the meaning of πρoγινώσκω elsewhere.
See God’s Sovereign Grace: A Biblical Examination of
Calvinism (Crowne, 1990), pp. 117-122. For the truly
brave at heart who wish exhaustive discussions, few are
better than Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology
(Presbyterian and Reformed, 1992), Volume I, p. 355 and
following.
28 Ibid., pp. 70-71.
 Chapter 9

Responding to CBF on Romans 9

This tremendous passage of Scripture is so clear, so strong,

that it truly does speak for itself. The student of Scripture that
wishes a full discussion of the passage is directed to John
Piper’s The Justification of God. Before examining Dr.
Geisler’s comments, a brief exegesis of the passage will be
offered.
This portion of Paul’s reasoned, organized argument
regarding the nature of salvation comes after the
announcement of the tremendous blessings of eternal salvation
found in chapter 8. Immediately the Apostle must face a
crucial issue: what of the Jews? Surely Paul had heard this
many times in his public ministry: “If this gospel message you
proclaim, Paul, is so wonderful, why is it that only a small
number of Jews embrace it, while the majority of the covenant
people reject it? Are not your main opponents the Jews, to
whom the promises were made? Are you not just a renegade
Jew who has left the faith?” Such accusations must have been
common place in the public disputations with the Jews. And
upon speaking of God’s work of predestining, calling,
justifying, and glorifying, one can just hear these objections
growing in volume. “Oh come now, Paul, if God is so
sovereign and powerful, then why do His very people, the
Jews, by and large reject Christ?” It is to this issue that Paul
now turns.
In Romans 9:1-5, Paul lays out his heart’s desire along with
the true privileges granted to physical Israel:
I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my
conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit, that I
have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart. For
I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated
 from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen
according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom
belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the
covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple
service and the promises, whose are the fathers, and
from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is
over all, God blessed forever. Amen.
Paul has not forgotten the Jews. Strong emotion fills his words
as he swears that he has sorrow and unceasing grief in his
heart over the hard-heartedness of the Jewish people. He even
goes so far as to say that he would be willing to be cut off
from Christ if this would only bring his brethren to salvation.
It should be noted that this immediately raises an important
point: Paul is speaking of individual salvation. It makes no
sense to say “I could wish myself were accursed for the sake
of the nation of Israel so that it might be returned to a position
of receiving national privileges and favor.”
The next verse is vitally important and provides the key to
one of the great controversies in interpretation of the rest of
the chapter:
But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For
they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel.
(Romans 9:6)
We can surely understand Paul’s concern: his ministry had
often been charged with teaching a doctrine that made it
appear as if the word of God (found in the promises to Israel)
had failed due to the rejection of Christ by the Jews. But Paul
is quick to reject this errant assertion. His response must be
understood. “For they are not all Israel who are descended
from Israel.” Why has the word of God not failed? Because the
accusation is based upon a false premise. Just because a person
is a physical descendant of Israel does not mean this person is
truly an Israelite. The rejection of those who are only
physically Jews but not spiritually so is not a valid basis upon
which to say the promises have been made void. Paul expands
upon this point:
 Nor are they all children because they are Abraham’s
descendants, but: “THROUGH ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS
WILL BE NAMED.” That is, it is not the children of the
flesh who are children of God, but the children of the
promise are regarded as descendants. For this is the
word of promise: “AT THIS TIME I WILL COME, AND SARAH
WILL HAVE A SON.” (Romans 9:7-9)

The promises remain valid since they were only the possession
of the “children of promise” from the beginning. Two truths
immediately come to our attention: first, God determined who
was, and who was not, a child of promise. This is all God’s
work. Secondly, Paul is speaking of the salvation of
individuals. When he says that not all who are descended from
Israel are truly children of promise, who is he referring to? Is
he not speaking of persons within the body of the nation of
Israel? Who are these children of promise if not people?
Remember the accusation to which he responds: “Look, Paul!
Your gospel teaches that these Jewish opponents of yours who
oppose Christ and His gospel will be accursed! You nullify the
word of God!” But Paul’s response is, “No, I do not, for
simply being a physical descendant of Israel does not make
you a true Israelite. God has always had an elect people that
He chooses and it is not an external matter, based upon race or
nationality.” And it is this last point that Paul takes up
beginning in verse 9. But the key is this: Paul is not talking
about nations and he is talking about God’s sovereign election
in salvation, for it was God’s right and freedom to limit His
promises to the children of promise, and not to anyone else.
God has always worked this way, Paul teaches. Salvation
has always been under His control. God has never been forced
to act upon the dictates of human choice or decision. He
demonstrates this from Israel’s own history:
And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when
she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac;
for though the twins were not yet born and had not
done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose
according to His choice would stand, not because of
works but because of Him who calls, it was said to
 her, “THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER.” Just as it is
written, “JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED.” (Romans
9:10-13)
The declaration of “God’s purpose according to His choice”
(or “election”) is the keystone of this section. Everything
points to this one assertion. The pronouncement by God that
the older would serve the younger was made on the basis of a
choice by God (dare we say a “free choice”?) that was made
before their birth and before they could “do” anything good or
bad. Paul’s emphasis is upon the independence and freedom of
God’s choice. There was nothing in the twins that determined
the choice (which is the point of stating that the
pronouncement was made before the twins had done “anything
good or bad”). Just so that this would not be missed, Paul
clarifies and emphasizes his concern: “not because of works
but because of Him who calls.” Literally the text reads “from
works.…from the One calling,” again making the same point:
the ground of choice, the source of election, is solely in God,
not in man. John Piper gave excellent insight into this passage
when he wrote,
First, with the use of the preposition ἐξ Paul makes
explicit that God’s decision to treat Esau and Jacob
differently is not merely prior to their good or evil
deeds but is also completely independent of them.
God’s electing purpose (Rom 9:11c) and his concrete
prediction (9:12c) are in no way based on the
distinctives Esau and Jacob have by birth or by action.
This rules out the notion of the early Greek and Latin
commentators that election is based on God’s
foreknowledge of men’s good works. Second, Rom
9:12b enlarges on 9:11b by going beyond the negation
of human distinctives as the ground for God’s
predestining of Esau and Jacob. It makes the positive
affirmation that the true ground of this election is God
himself, “the one who calls.” The intended force of the
phrase “not from works but from the one who calls” is
felt most strongly when one contrasts it with the
similar Pauline phrase “not from works but from
faith.” In Paul’s thinking the latter phrase describes the
 event of justification (Rom 9:32; Gal 2:16), never the
event of election or predestination. Paul never grounds
the “electing purpose of God” in man’s faith. The
counterpart to works in conjunction with election (as
opposed to justification) is always God’s own call
(Rom 9:12b) or his own grace (Rom 11:6). The
predestination and call of God precede justification
(Rom 8:29f) and have no ground in any human act,
not even faith. This is why Paul explicitly says in Rom
9:16 that God’s bestowal of mercy on whomever he
wills is based neither on human willing (which would
include faith) nor on human running (which would
include all activity).1
This is likewise the implication of verse 13, where God speaks
of His choice of Jacob over Esau. Much is made of the terms
“loved” and “hated” here, and we will see how these terms are
to be applied when responding to CBF’s commentary.
The immediate response that is offered to the assertion of
the Potter’s freedom to do with His creation as He sees fit is,
“But, doesn’t that make God unjust?” Paul had “heard it all
before” and was ready with a response:
What shall we say then? There is no injustice with
God, is there? May it never be! For He says to Moses,
“I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL
HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION.” So
then it does not depend on the man who wills or the
man who runs, but on God who has mercy. (Romans
9:14-16)
Paul is ready with an Old Testament example to buttress his
arguments: Exodus 33. This tremendous passage contains
themes that find their full expression only in the New
Testament’s full revelation of the doctrines of God’s free and
sovereign grace. God showed mercy and compassion to
Moses, choosing to reveal His glory as an act of grace. We
must understand, in light of the prevailing attitude of the world
around us, that God’s mercy, if it is to be mercy at all, must be
free. Literally the text speaks of “mercying” and
“compassioning,” again verbs of action that find their subject
in God and their object in those chosen by His decision. It
does not say, “I will have mercy on those who fulfill the
conditions I have laid down as the prerequisite of my plan of
salvation.” Both the “source” of compassion and mercy and
the individual application find their ultimate ground only in
the free choice of God, not of man.
This divine truth, so offensive to the natural man, could not
find a clearer proclamation than Romans 9:16. We truly must
ask, if this passage does not deny to the will of man the all-
powerful position of final say in whether the entire work of the
Triune God in salvation will succeed or fail, what passage
possibly could? What stronger terms could be employed? The
verse begins, “so then,” drawing from the assertion of God that
mercy and compassion are His to freely give. Next comes the
negative particle, “not,” which negates everything that follows
in the clause. Two human activities are listed: willing and
literally “running,” or striving. Human choice and human
action. Paul puts it bluntly: it is not “of the one willing” nor is
it “of the one running.” Paul uses two singular present active
participles. The fact that they are singular shows us again the
personal nature of the passage. The interpretation that
attempts to limit Romans 9 to “nations” cannot begin to
explain how nations “will” or “run.” In contrast to these Paul
uses a present active participle to describe God’s act of
“mercying,” showing mercy. Man may strive through his will
and his endeavors, but God must show mercy.
Lest someone think, “Well, yes, God shows mercy and
initiates salvation, and only then does the will of man freely
embrace it,” as is argued constantly in CBF, Paul closes the
door by giving as his own interpretation of his argument the
example of Pharaoh:
For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “FOR THIS VERY
PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN
YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED
THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH.” So then He has
mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He
desires. (Romans 9:17-18)
The example of Pharaoh was well known to any person
familiar with the Old Testament. God destroyed the Egyptian
nation by plagues so as to demonstrate His might and power in
the earth, and key to this demonstration was the hardening of
Pharaoh’s heart. Before Moses had met with Pharaoh the first
time God told him:
When you go back to Egypt see that you perform
before Pharaoh all the wonders which I have put in
your power; but I will harden his heart so that he will
not let the people go. (Exodus 4:21)
It was God’s intention to bring His wrath upon the Egyptians.
God’s actions were not “forced” by the stubborn will of the
Egyptian leader. God said He would harden Pharaoh’s heart,
and He did. Listen to the impudent response of this pagan
idolater to the command of Moses:
And afterward Moses and Aaron came and said to
Pharaoh, “Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, ‘Let
My people go that they may celebrate a feast to Me in
the wilderness.’” But Pharaoh said, “Who is the LORD
that I should obey His voice to let Israel go? I do not
know the LORD, and besides, I will not let Israel go.”
(Exodus 5:1-2)
Is this not what God said He would do? Will someone suggest
that Pharaoh’s heart is “soft” here? No indeed, and Moses well
knew that God was behind this for when the Pharaoh then
increased the work load of the Israelites, Moses complained to
God in Exodus 5:22. Why complain to God if, in fact, God had
nothing to do with it and it was all just a matter of the
Pharaoh’s “free will choice”?
This provides the background of Paul’s citation of Exodus
9:16. The portion of truth that here stings the pride of man is
this: it is more important that God’s name be magnified and
His power made known than it is any single man get to “do his
own thing.” Pharaoh was surely never forced to do anything
sinful (indeed, God probably kept him from committing many
a sinful deed). He acted on the desires of his wicked heart at
all times. But he is but a pot, a creature, not the Potter. He was
formed and made and brought into existence to serve the
Potter’s purposes, not his own. He is but a servant, one chosen,
in fact, for destruction. His destruction, and the process that
led up to it (including all the plagues upon Egypt), were part of
God’s plan. There is simply no other way to understand these
words.
Paul then combines the fact that God showed undeserved
compassion and mercy to Moses (Exodus 33) with God’s
hardening of Pharaoh’s heart (Exodus 5) and concludes that
whether one is “mercied” or “hardened” is completely,
inalterably, and utterly up to God. The verbs here are active:
God performs these actions. He “mercies” whom He wills and
He hardens whom He wills. The parallel between “mercy” and
“hardening” is inarguable. We may like the “mercying” part
more than the hardening, but they are both equally a part of
the same truth. Reject one and you reject them both. There is
no such thing as preaching God’s mercy without preaching
God’s judgment, at least according to Scripture.
The passage reaches a crescendo in these final verses:
You will say to me then, “Why does He still find
fault? For who resists His will?” On the contrary, who
are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing
molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you
make me like this,” will it? (Romans 9:19-20)
Paul well knew the objections man presents to the words he
had just penned. If God has mercy solely based upon His good
pleasure, and if God hardens Pharaoh on the same basis, all to
His own glory and honor, how can God hold men accountable
for their actions, for who resists His will? Paul’s response is
swift and devastating: Yes indeed God holds man accountable,
and He can do so because He is the Potter, the one who molds
and creates, while man is but the “thing molded.” For a pot to
question the Potter is absurd: for man to answer back to God is
equally absurd. These words cannot be understood separately
from the fundamental understanding of the freedom of the
Sovereign Creator and the ontological creatureliness of man
that removes from him any ground of complaint against God.
Though already devastatingly clear, Paul makes sure there is
no doubt left as to his point:
Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to
make from the same lump one vessel for honorable
use and another for common use? What if God,
although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to
make His power known, endured with much patience
vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And He did
so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels
of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory,
even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews
only, but also from among Gentiles. (Romans 9:21-24)
The Potter’s freedom pulses through these words, flowing
inexorably into the sea of sovereignty, rushing any would-be
proponent of free will out of its path. God has the perfect right
to do with His creation (including men) as He wishes, just as
the Potter has utter sovereignty over the clay. Just as God had
demonstrated His wrath and power by wasting idolatrous
Egypt, so too He demonstrates His wrath upon “vessels of
wrath prepared for destruction.” Are these nations? Classes?
No, these are sinners upon whom God’s wrath comes. They
are said to have been specifically “prepared for destruction.”
That is their purpose.
Why are there vessels prepared for destruction? Because
God is free. Think about it: there are only three logical
possibilities here.2 Either 1) all “vessels” are prepared for
glory (universalism); 2) all “vessels” are prepared for
destruction; or 3) some vessels are prepared for glory and
some are prepared for destruction and it is the Potter who
decides which are which. Why is there no fourth option, one in
which the pots prepare themselves based upon their own
choice? Because pots don’t have such a capacity! Pots are
pots! Since God wishes to make known the “riches of His
grace” to His elect people (the vessels prepared of mercy),
there must be vessels prepared for destruction. There is no
demonstration of mercy and grace where there is no justice.
The vessels of wrath, remember, like being vessels of wrath,
would never choose to be anything else, and they detest the
vessels that receive mercy. Indeed, during the writing of this
book I encountered an unbeliever who, upon hearing me
mention the wrath of God, mocked and said, “Ah, yes, the
wrath of God! I LIKE IT!” This is the attitude of the vessel of
wrath prepared for destruction.
God’s wonderful grace will be praised throughout eternity
because of the great contrast between the vessels of wrath and
the vessels of mercy. Why? Because the only difference
between the vessels of wrath and the vessels of mercy is the
sovereign grace of God that changes the heart of the rebel
sinner and turns him from being a God-hater into a God-lover.
This is why there is no basis for man’s boasting, ever.
Given how clear and forceful this passage is, how can the
Arminian escape its force? Dr. Geisler relies upon the standard
Arminian explanations as he attempts to defuse this
thoroughly Reformed proclamation in Romans 9.

A Most Difficult Task

CBF’s response to Romans 9 is split up into various
sections. This is unfortunate, since it would be most helpful to
see an actual exegesis of the entire passage offered. One of the
things that would be seen immediately were all the comments
on Romans 9 to be placed in the same context is that the
Arminian response is internally inconsistent. As we will see,
CBF will argue that Romans 9:13, for example, is about
nations not people (the standard Arminian stance). Yet, when
we get down to the later verses in the passage, CBF switches
over to talking about persons. When does the passage make
this grand leap from nations to persons? We are not told, and
of course, the text does not even begin to give us a reason for
viewing it in that way. The Arminian interpretation faces
insurmountable difficulties on many fronts.
We will address CBF’s comments not in the order presented
in the book (Romans 9:16, for example, is addressed more
than twenty pages before the rest of the chapter), but in the
order of the text itself.
 Upon the citation of Romans 9:11-13 Dr. Geisler writes,
“This is a favorite passage of extreme Calvinists, especially
those who believe in double predestination. For it appears to
say that God not only loves just the elect, but also He even
hates the non-elect.”3 Immediately we have a problem: the
Calvinist “likes” the passage because it speaks of the
inviolability of God’s purpose in election and shows that His
choices are not determined by anything in man. The quotation
of Malachi 1:2-3 by the Apostle Paul is meant to contrast the
gracious choice of Jacob over that of Esau. It is not an issue of
proving that God loves the elect (that is a given), nor that God
hates those He leaves to justice (Psalm 5:5 and 11:5 teach this
no matter how one interprets Romans 9:13). Dr. Geisler states:
Few scriptural texts are more misused by extreme
Calvinists than this one. First of all, God is not
speaking here about the individual Jacob but about the
nation of Jacob (Israel). In Genesis when the
prediction is made (25:23 NKJV), Rebekah was told, “
‘Two nations are in your womb, two peoples shall be
separated from your body . . . And the older shall
serve the younger.’ ” So the reference here is not to
individual election but to the corporate election of a
nation—the chosen nation of Israel.4
A little later it is said,
Third, God’s “love” for Jacob and “hate” for Esau is
not speaking of those men before they were born, but
long after they lived. The citation in Romans 9:13 is
not from Genesis when they were alive (c. 2000 B.C.)
but from Malachi 1:2-3 (c. 400 B.C.), long after they
died!
These two assertions provide the bulk of the argument that this
section is speaking of nations, and the next quote provides the
second prong, the idea that “hated” here really means “loved
less.”
Fourth, the Hebrew word for “hated” really means
“loved less.” Indication of this comes from the life of
Jacob himself. For the Bible says Jacob “loved also
 Rachel more than Leah…The Lord saw that Leah was
hated” (Gen. 29:30-31).…So even one of the
strongest verses used by extreme Calvinists does not
prove that God hates the non-elect or even that He
does not love them. It simply means that God’s love
for those who receive salvation looks so much greater
than His love for those who reject it that the latter
looks like hatred by comparison.
A couple of illustrations make the point. The same
loving stroke that makes a kitten purr seems like
hatred if she turns the opposite direction and finds her
fur being rubbed the wrong way.5
One is immediately struck by the fact that the key issues
present in Reformed exegesis of the text are utterly and
completely ignored by CBF. Aside from one footnote
(addressed below), the entirety of the response to this section
of Romans 9 can be summed up as 1) this refers to nations, not
individuals, and 2) hated doesn’t mean hated but “loved less.”
With all due respect to Dr. Geisler, this is a “non-response”
that does not focus upon the text at all. There is no exegesis
with which to interact. We will, however, respond to both
assertions that are made.
First, we have already seen the inconsistency in claiming
that the testimony of the passage to personal election unto
salvation through the assertion that we are speaking solely of
nations not of individuals cannot be substantiated. While Dr.
Geisler will make reference to John Piper’s work, and hence
must know of the extensive discussion that work contains
refuting this very concept, not a single word is uttered in
refutation. As we pointed out in the Introduction, all that is
provided is a footnote citing Piper’s list of scholars who see
this as having only national application. There is no footnote
citing Piper’s listing of the scholars who do see the passage
referring to individual salvation (though the list begins on the
same page). There is no discussion of the pages of
argumentation provided by Piper against the position of CBF.
As far as the reader of CBF would be concerned, Reformed
theologians simply make the assertion and never substantiate
it. It seems to us that given the claim on page 83 of CBF that
Piper is “mistaken” in his views (specifically regarding the
time frame of the act of divine election), it would be necessary
for CBF to at least make an attempt to rebut some of Piper’s
material. For example, here is but one paragraph from Piper’s
work that gives an idea of the level of argumentation CBF
ignores:
It is a remarkable and telling phenomenon that those
who find no individual predestination to eternal life in
Rom 9:6-13 cannot successfully explain the thread of
Paul’s argument as it begins in Rom 9:1-5 and
continues through the chapter. One looks in vain, for
example, among these commentators for a cogent
statement of how the corporate election of two peoples
(Israel and Edom) in Rom 9:12,13 fits together in
Paul’s argument with the statement, “Not all those
from Israel are Israel” (9:6b). One also looks in vain
for an explanation of how the pressing problem of
eternally condemned Israelites in Rom 9:3 is
ameliorated by Rom 9:6-13 if these verses refer “not
to salvation but to position and historical task.” I have
found the impression unavoidable that doctrinal
inclinations have severely limited exegetical effort and
insight—not so much because the answers of these
exegetes are not my own, but because of the crucial
exegetical questions that simply are not posed by
them.6
While these words were printed six years before CBF
appeared (and obviously written long before that), they could
not more thoroughly describe the “nations not people”
assertion presented by Dr. Geisler. Since no effort is made to
place this interpretation in the context so that we can see the
relationship of 9:13 with the preceding context, we must
simply say that the interpretation offered must be rejected on
the basis that it makes Paul’s entire argument muddled and
incoherent. Until Arminian scholars are willing to step up and
explain the passage as a whole, their efforts will remain
unconvincing.
 There are more reasons to reject CBF’s presentation. On
page 83 an endnote appears that challenges Piper on the issue
of the rejection of Esau. It is a classic example of out-of-
context citation that should not appear in a work by a scholar
of the rank of Norman Geisler. Here is what it says:
John Piper, widely held by extreme Calvinists to
have the best treatment on Romans 9, makes this
mistake. Piper claims that “the divine decision to
‘hate’ Esau was made ‘before they were born or had
done anything good or evil (9:11).’ ” But, as shown on
the previous page, the reference here is not to
something said in Genesis about the individuals Jacob
and Esau before they were born.7
One might think that this is being taken from the section of
Piper’s work specifically on the topic of Jacob and Esau. It is
not. Instead, this short snippet is a partial sentence from a
summary of a completely different topic, as we will show by
providing the full (and useful) quotation:
In sum then I have tried to demonstrate with three
arguments that the phrase, “Whom he wills he
hardens,” describes God’s freedom to choose the
recipients of his hardening apart from any ground in
their willing or acting. First, the parallel between 18a
and 18b shows that the freedom of God to harden is
parallel to his freedom to show mercy, which
according to 9:16 has no ground in a person’s willing
or running. Second, the correspondence between the
pairs, mercy/hardening (9:18) and love/hate (9:13),
shows that Paul does not intend for us to view the
hardening as a “divine reaction” to sin, since the
divine decision to “hate” Esau was made “before they
were born or had done anything good or evil” (9:11).
Third, Paul’s selection and adaptation of Ex 9:16,
which summarizes the theme of Ex 4-14, shows that
he understands God’s activity to be grounded in his
own purposes, not in the plans or actions of men.8
Does CBF attempt to respond to the actual argumentation
Piper provides regarding 9:13? No. Does it attempt to respond
to even this summary of Piper’s argument which, if true, is
utterly devastating to Geisler’s entire thesis? No.
Unfortunately, Piper is misrepresented yet again within just a
few pages, this time in reference to Romans 9:15. We will
examine CBF’s attempts to explain the “hardening” of
Pharaoh’s heart below, but in this section Piper is quoted as
follows:
John Piper stands the order and thought of the text
on its head, claiming implausibly that “it is just as
probable that ‘the hardening of man by God appears as
self-hardening’” (Piper, The Justification of God,
163). This is an almost classic example of reading
one’s theology into the text as opposed to reading the
text.9
Is this a classic example of eisegesis? No, it is a classic
example of misrepresentation through selective citation. The
quotation provided is not of Piper, first of all. This can be seen
in the fact that a second quotation mark appears in Geisler’s
citation: Piper is actually citing an article titled “Die
Verstockung des Menschen durch Gott” by K.L. Schmidt. This
quotation comes at the end of a paragraph found in the middle
of an extensive section of argumentation that includes
examination of original languages, charts of grammatical and
syntactical relationships, etc., that honestly asks about the
nature of the “hardening” spoken of with reference to Pharaoh.
Secondly, CBF ignores everything documented in this section
of Piper’s work, even though the data offered is utterly
contradictory to Geisler’s conclusions. The reader is directed
to the original source for a more complete picture of how
badly CBF handles this scholarly source.
Returning to Romans 9, we turn to the response offered to
9:15, where the “extreme Calvinist” is said to allege that “God
moved on his [Pharaoh’s] heart to accomplish His purpose,
Pharaoh could not resist.”10 Of course immediately one would
have to correct this representation of the Reformed position:
Pharaoh could not and would not desire to resist. Pharaoh was
not a kind, gentle, godly man who was forced to act in a bad
way by a mean, nasty God. No, Pharaoh was a pagan idolater,
justly under the wrath of God, whose every breath and
heartbeat was his only as God extended mercy to him. His
blackened, sin-filled heart was constantly being reined in by
God’s common grace so that he was not nearly as bad as he
could have been. He did not have the first desire to submit to
God or do right. To say that Pharaoh “could not resist” is to
assume he would ever want to. CBF continues:
While it is true that God predicted in advance that it
would happen (Ex. 4:21), nonetheless the fact is that
Pharaoh hardened his own heart first (7:13, 8:15, etc.),
and then God only hardened it later (cf. 9:12, 10:1, 20,
27).
Piper completely refutes this single-sentence assertion over the
course of twelve pages of scholarly argumentation.11 We
simply point out one major mistake: did God merely “predict”
that He would harden Pharaoh’s heart? To say that Pharaoh
hardened his own heart first 1) ignores Exodus 5:1-2 and
assumes that this is not the fulfillment of Exodus 4:21 and 2)
assumes that the hardening of his heart by God is somehow
“based upon” or dependent upon Pharaoh’s actions. We have
now seen, many times, that CBF’s most fundamental
presupposition is the absolute freedom of man and his ability
to exercise “choice.” This is a wonderful example of how that
kind of philosophical presupposition can result in errors in
exegesis. But the text provides an even greater example of
how one’s assumptions can lead to errors of interpretation:
What is more, the Hebrew word “hardened”
(chazaq) can and often does mean to “strengthen”
(Judg. 3:12; 16:28), or even to “encourage” (cf. Deut.
1:38; 3:28). Taken in this sense, it would not carry any
sinister connotations but would simply state that God
made Pharaoh strong to carry through with his
(Pharaoh’s) will against Israel.12
It is difficult to respond to such an assertion. Even if one did
not have the obvious context of Exodus to so clearly explain
that the hardening of the heart of Pharaoh was specifically
related to his refusal to let the people go so that God could
bring judgment on Egypt, you would still have the immediate
context of Romans 9. When Paul writes, “He has mercy on
whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires,” there is
an obvious parallel between “have mercy on” and “harden,”
and, of course, Paul is drawing his terminology from the
Exodus account. Hence, Paul certainly did not understand it as
“strengthen” for such makes absolutely no sense in Romans
9:18. Why this is even suggested is hard to see outside of the
telltale comment that to suggest that God hardened Pharaoh’s
heart is somehow “sinister.”
The second most amazing response13 in CBF is found on
page 59 where Norman Geisler responds to the use of Romans
9:16. Throughout the work Dr. Geisler focuses upon R.C.
Sproul and singles him out for special criticism. He makes
references to Sproul’s use of Romans 9:16: “R.C. Sproul is
incautiously triumphant about this, claiming: ‘This one verse
is absolutely fatal to Arminianism.’”14 One paragraph is then
provided in response to this tremendous passage. It reads,
Again, the Greek word for “of” here is ek, which
means “out of.” It is a reference to the source of
salvation, not the means by which we receive it—this
means it is a free act of our will in receiving it (John
1:12; Eph. 2:8, etc.). All forms of Calvinism and
Arminianism believe that God is the one who initiated
salvation, even before the world began (Eph. 1:4).
Only God can be the source of God’s saving “mercy.”
However, as the Bible indicates later in Romans 9 (v.
22) and elsewhere, we can reject God’s mercy (2 Peter
3:9; Acts 7:51).
First, the Greek term ἐκ does not appear in the text of Romans
9:16. Secondly, CBF says Romans 9 isn’t about salvation to
begin with, as we have already seen! Is there some massive
change in the context between verses 13 and 16? No, there is
not, but this is just another inherent problem with the
Arminian attempts to get around the teaching of the passage.
Thirdly, there is nothing anywhere in the text that provides a
foundation for the completely arbitrary claim that the passage
is referring to the source of salvation in distinction from the
means of salvation. Are we to believe that Paul was concerned
to prove that salvation does not find its source in the will of
man or the works of man? Were his opponents actually
suggesting such a belief? Of course not. But so strong, so
pervasive is the commitment to the concept of the autonomy of
man that even a passage that emphatically denies the role of
the will of man can be turned on its head so that CBF can
claim, “this means it is a free act of our will in receiving it.”
The term “eisegesis” is too mild to describe such an assertion:
no interaction with the actual wording of the text is offered.
Even the use of the “imaginary objector” in 9:19 is brought
into the attempt to deflect this passage and rescue the
Arminian system. Geisler quotes the verse and interprets the
Calvinistic view as saying “This seems to imply that God’s
power in salvation is literally irresistible regardless of what
one wills.” Again, we don’t know how a discussion of nations
became a discussion of salvation, but we certainly accept the
assertion that God’s power in salvation is irresistible, as we
will see in the next chapter (dead men put up little resistance to
anything). He comments,
So the idea that one cannot resist God’s will may be
no more part of Paul’s teaching than the view that we
should do evil so good may come.
Furthermore, Paul clearly rejects the objector’s
stance in the very next verse, saying, “But who are
you, O man, to talk back to [i.e., resist] God? (Rom.
9:20). His answer implies that the objector can and is
resisting God by raising this very question. But more
importantly, the direct implication is that if it is
irresistible, then we should not be blamed.15
We cannot help but notice how very difficult it is for the
Arminian scholar to provide any kind of textually-based
response to this passage. The objector is voicing the obvious
argument men raise when faced with God’s absolute
sovereignty and freedom. Since the Arminian actually rejects
the substance of the passage, it is easy to see why at this point
they would try to find a way out of the final conclusion.
The point of Paul’s response, “Who are you, O man, to talk
back to God” is to emphasize the creatureliness of man. There
is no reason, at all, for the insertion of the phrase, in brackets,
“i.e., resist.” The Greek term ἀνταποκρινóμενος means “talk
back to, answer back to,” not “resist.” It strikes us as ironic
that Dr. Geisler would chide Calvinists for allegedly “changing
the Scriptures” when in this instance he inserts a phrase that
has no basis in the text, and then bases his comments on his
own inserted phrase! The objector is not “resisting God.” What
is more, it almost sounds as if Dr. Geisler is seriously
suggesting that there is some connection between a person
“resisting God” by answering back and the Calvinistic concept
of irresistible grace in regeneration! Such would be a
completely fallacious argument based upon equivocation, if in
fact that is the intent. Finally, the real reason why the text has
to be (to use Dr. Geisler’s own term) manhandled comes out in
the end: if it is true that God is this free, this sovereign, that He
has mercy on whom He wills and hardens whom He wills,
then “we can’t be blamed.” Of course, that’s what the
imaginary objector says: and the inspired Apostle refutes the
objection in what follows.
CBF moves on to the rest of the passage,
The image this conjures up in a Western mind is
often deterministic, if not fatalistic, one where they
have no choice but are overpowered by God.
However, a Hebrew mind would not think this way,
knowing the parable of the potter from Jeremiah 18.
For in this context the basic lump of clay will either be
built up or torn down by God, depending on Israel’s
moral response to God. For the prophet says
emphatically, “If that nation I warned repents of its
evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I
had planned” (18:8). Thus, the unrepentant element of
Israel becomes a “vessel for dishonour” and the
repentant group a “vessel for honor”.…16
Just as we had to express our amazement at the insertion of
acts of “free will” into Romans 9:16, so too here we cannot
help but point out that the main point of the entire passage is
overthrown and literally contradicted all to maintain the
supremacy of the free choices of men! Read Jeremiah 18 and
see if the point of the parable of the potter and the clay is that
there is something in the clay that determines what the potter
will do? The parable shows God’s complete sovereignty over
the nation of Israel. He can do with the nation as He wishes.
He is not limited by the “free choices” of people. Surely he
calls the nation to repent beginning in verse 7, but upon what
principle of logic or hermeneutics are we to believe that the
actual point of the parable is that the clay can force the potter’s
hand either by its sin or its repentance? Beyond this issue, may
we ask how any of CBF’s response is relevant to the text as it
stands? Where is there a discussion of vessels of honor and
dishonor in Jeremiah 18? Where is there a discussion of
vessels of wrath and vessels of mercy? There is none. This
leaves the actual passage untouched and the point it
communicates unrefuted.
Further, there is a different use of prepositions in
“vessel unto honour” versus a “vessel of wrath” (Rom.
9:22). A vessel of wrath is one that has received wrath
from God, just as a vessel of mercy has received
mercy from God. But a vessel unto honor is one that
gives honor to God. So a repentant Israel will, like a
beautiful vessel unto [for] honor, bring honor to its
Maker. But like a vessel of dishonor (literally, “no-
honor”), an unrepentant Israel will not bring honor to
God, but will rather be an object of His wrath.17
One cannot help but be struck by the consistency of this kind
of interpretation: no matter how plainly the text emphasizes
God’s sovereignty, the interpretation finds a way to turn
everything back upon the creature.
It is difficult to understand the argumentation provided
regarding prepositions. When the idea is first introduced in
verse 21 there is perfect parallelism between “vessel for
honorable use” and vessel “for common use.” In the same way,
“vessels of wrath” is σκεύη ὀργ ς, and “vessels of mercy” is
σκεύη ἐλέoνς. Both, again, are in perfect parallel (both
“wrath” and “mercy” are in the genitive singular). There is no
reason to parallel “vessel unto honor” (v. 21) with “vessels of
wrath” (v. 22) as the text parallels “vessel unto honor” with a
vessel “for common use” using the exact same language in
verse 21. The only “difference in prepositions” is between the
use of είς in v. 22 (in the phrase “vessels prepared for
destruction”) and ἐπί in v. 23 (in the phrase “unto vessels of
mercy”), though this is not the difference to which Dr. Geisler
points (seemingly basing his comments on the English
translation, not the Greek text). There are easily discernable
grammatical and lexical reasons why Paul would use “upon
vessels of mercy” (the same preposition is used in Ephesians
2:7, “so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing
riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus”).
But none of these issues actually speak to what Geisler asserts.
A vessel of wrath is one prepared for destruction that will
experience God’s wrath: a vessel of mercy is one prepared for
glory. These are the parallel statements. Nothing provided in
CBF disproves the Reformed view of the passage.
So after “answering” Romans 9, CBF concludes,
There is absolutely no reason to believe, as the
extreme Calvinists do, either here or anywhere else in
Scripture, that God predestines certain persons to
eternal hell apart from their own free choice.18
We know by this point what underlies this assertion: it is the
belief that man’s free choice is the ultimate factor in the work
of salvation. But after observing the methodology used
throughout this section (and thus far in the book), we have to
conclude that this is a statement of faith, not a conclusion
based upon the text of Scripture. It comes not from exegesis
but from a strong commitment to the presuppositions of
Arminian theology. God created vessels of wrath. We may not
like the idea, but we have no right to change the Word nor
reject its teaching.
Having now seen that CBF has failed to respond to the
biblical arguments used by Reformed believers to teach the
total inability of man and God’s unconditional election, we
now turn to Christ’s work of atonement and provide a response
in defense of the glorious truth of the perfection of His work in
the place of the elect.
Notes
1 John Piper, The Justification of God (Baker Book House,
1993), pp. 52-53.
2 Some argue for more than these three possibilities. R.C.H.
Lenski inserts Satan into the context as the one who
prepares these vessels of wrath. See my rebuttal at
www.aomin.org/Lenskirep.html. Others argue the term
should be translated as a middle so that these are vessels
who “prepared themselves for destruction.” See the
rebuttal of this viewpoint by Daniel B. Wallace, Greek
Grammar Beyond the Basics (Eerdmans, 1996), pp. 417-
418.
3 Chosen But Free, p. 82.
4 Ibid.
5 Ibid., p. 83.
6 Piper, The Justification of God, p. 58.
7 Ibid., p. 83.
8 Ibid., p. 175.
9 Chosen But Free, p. 88.
10 Ibid., p. 88.
11 Piper, The Justification of God, pp. 159-171.
12 Chosen But Free, p. 87.
13 The most amazing response was given in reference to John
6:44 as we saw in chapter seven.
14 Ibid., p. 59
15 Ibid., p. 89.
16 Ibid., p. 90.
17 Ibid, pp. 90-91.
18 Ibid., p. 91.
 Chapter 10

The Perfect Work of Calvary

Modern evangelicals are mushy on the cross. While books

about eschatology, Bible prophecy, or end-times theories fly
off the shelves, and your average Sunday church-goer can
discuss such things as rapture theories, the identity of the
AntiChrist, etc., pitifully few could even begin to make a
biblically-based presentation of the meaning of such terms as
“atonement,” “propitiation,” “redemption” or the like. The
preaching of our day on the work of Christ on Calvary is far
more often based upon pure emotion than it is the clear and
compelling teaching of the Bible. Sound unfair? Sound
unkind? It is neither, I assure you.
The work of Christ on Calvary is the central theme of the
message of the New Testament. Paul teaches that Christ is the
focal point of history. At the core of the gospel message is the
exclusivisity of the cross. The death of Christ is the only means
of salvation, propitiation, forgiveness, and redemption.
Christianity exists only when the preaching of the cross is its
message. Once the death of Christ becomes a way and not the
way, Christianity ceases to exist and the power of God is lost.
It has become traditional in evangelical Protestantism to
preach the cross as follows: God so loved the world that He
gave His Son to die upon the cross for every single individual
in all the world. By exercising faith in Christ, you can receive
the benefits of Christ’s death on the cross. If you do not
believe, Christ’s death, even though offered in your place, will
do you no good. You will still suffer for your sins. Christ truly
wants to save you, if you will but believe.
Is this the message preached by the Apostles? Is this the
preaching of the cross of Christ? Calvinists say “no,” and they
do so because of the biblical doctrine of atonement. In its
simplest terms the Reformed belief is this: Christ’s death saves
sinners. It does not make the salvation of sinners a mere
possibility. It does not provide a theoretical atonement. It
requires no additions, whether they be the meritorious works
of men or the autonomous act of faith flowing from a “free
will.” Christ’s death saves every single person that it was
intended to save.
It is right here that the first objection surfaces: those who do
not believe God intends to save a particular people, but instead
tries to save “the maximum number possible,” will reject
immediately the idea that Christ’s death was intended to
actually redeem the elect perfectly. Instead, the atoning work
of Christ will have to be made a part of a hypothetical system,
a “plan” that, if properly activated by the actions or will of
man, results in salvation. But is this the biblical doctrine?
Beware! This topic is fraught with emotional pitfalls. We
have so often heard certain things taught in a particular fashion
that they have become part of the very fabric of our religious
experience and belief. So when our personal traditions are
challenged, we often respond with emotion rather than
biblically-based thought and consideration. Love of the truth
demands that we remember this: sentimentality is no
replacement for doctrinal purity. To desire correct doctrine
should be normative for every believer. Part of loving God is
loving His truth and desiring to grow in it. And surely every
believer can fully understand the need to know the truth about
the “cross-work” of Christ so that we can stand firmly upon
the basis of the Word in knowing that we have truly been
redeemed and have peace with God.

Limited Atonement
It’s the favorite target of Arminian preachers. “Calvinists
are so far off that they preach that Christ’s death is limited!
They don’t even believe Christ died for sinners, but just for
them!” I have honestly seen this kind of rhetoric on the
Internet and in self-published books from fundamentalists. Yet,
almost never do we read a full, honest, biblically-based
discussion of the real issues. Most of the time both sides will
toss out passages that speak either of Christ dying for “all
men” (resulting in the inevitable discussion of the meaning of
“all” in various contexts), or of Christ dying for a specific
people (resulting in a discussion of whether that group is fixed
by God’s decree or determined by the free act of faith). While
both topics are important (and we have already seen that God
does have a specific elect people that He intends to save), they
skirt around the main issue. We do not determine the intention
and result of the atonement by reasoning from such premises.
There are direct, clear, compelling passages of Scripture that
tell us what the intention and result of the atonement is, and to
these we must look for our foundational understanding of the
atoning work of Christ.
What does “limited atonement” mean? When a Calvinist
uses the term, it means “Christ’s intention in His death was the
perfect and substitutionary atonement of all of His elect.” The
scope of His work is in perfect harmony with His intention,
which is the salvation of His elect people who are entrusted to
Him. It makes no sense for Christ to offer atonement for those
the Father does not entrust to Him for salvation. Obviously, a
person who does not believe the Father entrusts a particular
people (the elect) to the Son has no reason to believe in
particular redemption. But since it is His intention to save all
those given to Him by the Father (John 6:37-39), He bears
their iniquities in His body on the tree in their place. B.B.
Warfield is correct when he asserts that the substitutionary
aspect of the work of Christ on the cross is “as precious to the
Calvinist as is his particularism, and for the safeguard of
which, indeed, much of his zeal for particularism is due.”1
A common, but not fully Reformed, assertion is that Christ’s
death was sufficient to save every single human being, but
efficient to save only the elect. While the statement carries
truth, it misses the most important issue: whether it was
Christ’s intention to make full and complete atonement for
every single individual (making salvation theoretically
possible but not actual) or whether it was His intention to
make full atonement for all those given to Him by the Father
(the elect). Both “sides” can use the statement: the Arminian
can say it is true since the “elect” is determined not by God’s
choice, but by man’s. Therefore this saying, popular since the
scholastic period of church history, really says nothing to the
point of debate.

Defining the Issues

This topic is so laden with emotion that it is absolutely
necessary that we plot a clear course by providing an outline
of the real issues. Keep these thoughts in mind as we examine
this doctrine and CBF’s attempted refutation:
1) We must distinguish between the scope of the atonement,
the effect of the atonement, and the intention of the atonement.
That is, it is obviously a different thing to ask the question,
“For whom did Christ die?” than it is to ask “What did Christ’s
death accomplish?” or “What did Christ intend to accomplish
by His death?” Much confusion is found in the minds of
believers when these different issues are not kept separate in
one’s thinking.
2) Saying the atonement is “limited” in one sphere is not the
same as saying it is “limited” in all others. All people, with the
possible exception of universalists (who posit salvation for all
men, though normally not based upon the atoning work of
Christ at the cross), “limit” the atonement in some fashion. For
example:
In Roman Catholicism, the work of Christ merits grace.
This grace is mediated to men and women through the
sacraments of the Church. The grace of justification, for
example, is mediated through the sacrament of baptism, and,
when one loses that grace through the commission of a mortal
sin, through the sacrament of penance. This grace then places
the believer in the “state of grace,” so that he or she can now
do “good works” that are meritorious before God and thereby
earn the reward of eternal life. The death of Christ then is
necessary to provide the key element or foundation of the
“system” of salvation. Without it, there would be no grace to
flow through the sacraments. In essence, it makes men savable
(by inaugurating a system whereby men save themselves), but
it does not actually save. One could surely not say that in
Roman Catholicism the death of Christ is sufficient to fully
and completely save any particular individual, nor would the
phrase “substitutionary atonement” fit this viewpoint (the idea
that Christ actually takes the penalty of sin due to each person
for whom He dies). The lack of substitution explains the
Roman Catholic concept of purgatory, the idea that sin can be
forgiven and yet still require temporal punishment, etc. So,
Rome would “limit” the atonement in its effect but not in its
scope. They would say Christ intended to provide the means of
redemption, but that His death, in and of itself, does not
redeem outside of human actions.
Historic Arminians saw that believing in the idea of
substitutionary atonement would not fit with their system of
theology. Even though Arminians today may use this
terminology, it does not strictly “belong” to them. Arminian
scholar J. Kenneth Grider asserts that the idea of
“substitutionary atonement” is foreign to Arminian thinking:
A spillover from Calvinism into Arminianism has
occurred in recent decades. Thus many Arminians
whose theology is not very precise say that Christ paid
the penalty for our sins. Yet such a view is foreign to
Arminianism, which teaches instead that Christ
suffered for us. Arminians teach that what Christ did
he did for every person; therefore what he did could
not have been to pay the penalty, since no one would
then ever go into eternal perdition. Arminianism
teaches that Christ suffered for everyone so that the
Father could forgive the ones who repent and believe;
his death is such that all will see that forgiveness is
costly and will strive to cease from anarchy in the
world God governs. This view is called the
governmental theory of the atonement.2
It is very difficult to understand upon what basis the Father
could forgive those who “repent and believe,” especially since
there is no substitution and hence no payment of the penalty of
sin. The atonement is a “demonstration” that “forgiveness is
costly.” Somehow this demonstration is meant to cause people
to “cease from anarchy in the world God governs.” But the
main element of the position is a denial of substitutionary
atonement, for it is understood that if Christ actually pays the
penalty due to sin under God’s law, then no person would ever
enter into judgment, given the idea that Christ’s atonement is
universal in scope.
Modern Arminians are generally unaware of the history of
Arminianism, and the fact that the phrases “Jesus took the
place of sinners” or “Jesus died for us” or “Jesus’ death paid
the penalty of sin” are “borrowed” from Calvinism. Many an
Arminian will confess belief in substitutionary atonement only
to change the meaning of “atonement” into something merely
theoretical. Robert Reymond described the logical
ramifications of believing that Christ only made a theoretical
atonement:
It also follows necessarily, since Christ by his death
actually procured nothing that guarantees the salvation
of any man, and yet some men are saved, that the most
one can claim for his work is that he in some way
made all men salvable. But the highest view of the
atonement that one can reach by this path is the
governmental view. This view holds that Christ by his
death actually paid the penalty for no man’s sin. What
his death did was to demonstrate what their sin
deserves at the hand of the just Governor and Judge of
the universe, and permits God justly to forgive men if
on other grounds, such as their faith, their repentance,
their works, and their perseverance, they meet his
demands. . . .But this is just to eviscerate the Savior’s
work of all of its intrinsic saving worth and to replace
the Christosoteric vision of Scripture with the
autosoteric vision of Pelagianism.3
There is, at least, consistency in the Arminian position.
They recognize the intimate connection that exists between
substitution and forgiveness. If Christ became a curse in our
behalf (Gal. 3:13)4 and if He sacrificially bore5 in His body on
the tree our sins (1 Peter 2:24),6 there is only one possible
result: the perfect salvation of all those for whom Christ died.
Consistent Arminians, therefore, must reject substitutionary
atonement and put in its place the governmental theory.
3) We must allow the words used by Scripture to carry their
full weight and meaning. This means we must determine the
meaning of such words as “propitiation” (ἱλαστήριον,
hilasterion), “redemption” (λύτρωσις, lutrosis), “sacrifice”
(θνσίας, thusias), “offering” (προσϕοραv, prosphora) and the
preposition “in the place of” or “for” (ύπέρ, huper), as in
Christ died “for” or “in the place of” His people.7
4) We must notice carefully the objects of the saving work
of Christ. Does the Bible tell us something about the ones who
receive the benefits of Christ’s death?
5) Most importantly, we have to see that the work of Christ
on the cross is directly related to other elements of His divine
work of redemption, especially to His work as Mediator and
Intercessor. For whom does Christ mediate and intercede?
What does the Bible mean when it says Christ intercedes
(ύπερεντυγχάνω, huperentungchano) for us? These are issues
rarely touched upon in the debate over particular redemption,
but they truly determine the truth of the doctrine.

Two Tremendous Passages

Two passages of Scripture speak with uncommon clarity
and strength to the beauty of the truth of Particular
Redemption: Romans 8:31-34 and the extended argument of
the writer to the Hebrews in chapters 7 through 10. We will
begin with the Apostle Paul. After proclaiming the “golden
chain of redemption” in Romans 8:28-30, Paul applies this
God-centered salvation and says,
What then shall we say to these things? If God is for
us, who is against us? He who did not spare His own
Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He
not also with Him freely give us all things? Who will
bring a charge against God’s elect? God is the one
who justifies; who is the one who condemns? Christ
Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who
 is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us.
(Romans 8:31-34)
Any treatment of soteriology must devote due time to this
tremendous passage. After lauding the power of God in
salvation and in bringing the elect into glory, Paul teaches the
Romans that the very foundation of the Christian’s confidence
in the future is in understanding that God saves perfectly. It is
important to see that the passage limits the audience to
believers, those seen in the preceding verses as the predestined
and called saints of God. Notice how the pronouns in the text
prohibit us from wandering from the true meaning of the text:
What then shall we say to these things? If God is for
us, who is against us? He who did not spare His own
Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He
not also with Him freely give us all things? Who will
bring a charge against God’s elect? God is the one who
justifies; who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus
is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at
the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us.
(Romans 8:31-34)
These are family promises, given to those whom God chose on
the basis of His own mercy and grace from all eternity. And
from this we can see testimony to the particular redemption
worked out in Christ. When Paul says “what shall we say to
these things,” and “If God is for us, who is against us?” he is
clearly speaking of elect believers. So the rest of the pronouns
likewise refer to the same group (and we will see verse 33
proves this identification).
With this in mind then, we look at verse 32. The Father did
not spare, or hold back, His very own Son, but delivered Him
over for us all. The word “delivered over” refers to the giving
of the Son in sacrifice. The Greek word παρέδωκεν is used in
this context by Paul, as in Ephesians 5:2 (where Christ gives
Himself up for us), and 5:25 (where Christ gives Himself for
the Church). It is also used in Matthew 27:26 of the delivering
up of Jesus to be crucified. The Father delivered over the Son
to die upon the cross for us. The preposition ύπὲρ (huper)
means “in the place of,” and is key to the substitutionary
concept of atonement. The Father gave the Son in our place, in
the place of His elect people.
In light of the tremendous price paid for our redemption in
Christ, Paul then asks, “how will He (the Father) not also with
Him (Christ) freely give us all things?” To whom is Paul
speaking? God’s elect. Surely these words could not be spoken
of every single human for two reasons: Christ is not “given” to
the person who endures God’s wrath in eternity, and, God
obviously does not give “all things” to those who spend
eternity in hell. If a person were to say, “Oh yes, God does,”
then it follows that this is an empty passage, one that says God
offers all things, but very few actually obtain them. No, it is
clear: God gives “all things” to those for whom He gave His
Son as a sacrifice. That sacrifice was for them; it was made in
their place.
Verse 33 connects particular redemption with the rest of the
work of salvation, especially justification. Paul asks, “Who
will bring a charge against God’s elect?” Here in the heavenly
courtroom the declaration on the part of the divine Judge of
the verdict upon those who are God’s elect is pronounced: they
are justified. There is no answer to Paul’s question, since no
one can bring a charge against God’s elect. God is the one who
justifies, and whom does He justify? His elect. Upon what
basis? The sole basis of justification for the elect is the perfect
work of Christ performed in their place. Just as God gave His
Son for them, so too He proclaims them just on the basis of the
work of His Son.
Since the Father is the one who justifies, who then can
condemn? Once the divine sentence has been uttered, there can
be no appeal to a higher court. This is why there can be no
condemnation of those who are in Christ Jesus, for the number
of those in Him is identical with the number of the elect. Can
Christ Jesus bring a charge of condemnation against them?
Certainly not, for He died and rose again and sits at the right
hand of God, “who also intercedes” for whom? For us. Who is
the “us”? The elect of God.

Intercession and Atonement

 This brings us to a vital truth: Jesus Christ intercedes for the
elect of God. His work of intercession is directly connected to
His work of atonement. Indeed, upon what ground can Christ
intercede except that perfect work accomplished on the cross?
We will see in our review of Hebrews that Christ saves
completely those for whom He intercedes. But since the work
of intercession and the work of atonement are but two different
aspects of His one atoning sacrifice, then it follows that Christ
saves all those for whom He dies. The non-Reformed are again
forced either to universalism (all are atoned for, hence all are
saved) or to rendering the atonement less than perfect, less
than truly salvific (Arminianism).
Christ intercedes for us. Can the redeemed heart, even for a
moment, consider the possibility that this work could fail?
Imagine it: Christ lays down His perfect, spotless, sinless life
on the cross. He is raised from the dead, and stands before the
Father and pleads that perfect sacrifice in the place of His
people. Is it at all possible that Christ could intercede for
someone and yet fail in His work and that person be lost? The
Arminian says, “Yes, for all the work of God, from the decree
of the Father to the sacrifice of the Son to the ministry of the
Spirit, is limited by the finite will of the rebel sinner.” But the
Bible knows of no such message. No one can bring a charge of
condemnation against the elect because the Father justifies
them and the Son intercedes for them. The work of God in
salvation is perfect.

The Testimony of Hebrews

This is the message of the writer to the Hebrews as well.
From the first paragraph of the letter the writer demonstrates
the superiority of Christ over the old shadows of the Jewish
system. Every chapter expands upon this theme. In chapter
seven the writer introduces the superior priesthood of Christ
over the Jewish priests who offered sacrifice in the Temple.
Here he enters into the heart of the work of Christ as High
Priest for the people of God. The priesthood of Christ is
superior to the old priesthood because He became a priest not
on the basis of law but on the basis of an oath (7:15-21). This
makes Him the “guarantee of a better covenant” (7:22). Then
he writes,
The former priests, on the one hand, existed in greater
numbers because they were prevented by death from
continuing, but Jesus, on the other hand, because He
continues forever, holds His priesthood permanently.
Therefore He is able also to save forever those who
draw near to God through Him, since He always lives
to make intercession for them. (Hebrews 7:23-25)
The old priests were imperfect on many levels. They could
not save completely for they were prevented from continuing
their ministry by death. Christ is not like them. He “continues
forever,” therefore, He holds His priesthood permanently.
Because of this He has a capacity, an ability, that none of the
old priests had: He is able to save είς, τò παντελὲς “forever” or
“to the uttermost.” Before expanding on this thought, we note
that the Scriptures say He is able to save a particular people
(those who draw near to God through Him) because He
always lives to engage in that unique and wonderful work Paul
mentioned in Romans 8:34, the work of intercession. Let us
consider what these few words mean.
First, He is able to save. He has the ability to actually save
human beings, deliver them from the dominion and penalty of
sin, and bring them into eternal glory. This ability resides in
Him, not in mere potentiality, but in reality. He is able to save
to the uttermost, forever, completely, without fail.
If a person believes salvation is the work of God then these
words fully explain why we glory in confessing Christ as the
perfect Savior. This is the ground upon which we can
understand His statement from the cross, “It is finished,”
rather than “it is now theoretically possible.” Jesus is able to
save not merely make savable.
Second, as we have seen, the Arminian says God decrees to
save, but leaves the identity of who will be saved to the free
choices of human beings. They might be tempted to insert this
over-riding concern into this passage as well by pointing to the
fact that Jesus saves “those who draw near to God through
Him.” “Obviously, drawing near to God involves an act of free
will” would be the assertion, again placing the first power of
choice in the hands of the sinner. But, of course, we have
already seen that Jesus taught that no man is able to exercise
this kind of “coming” unless it is granted by the Father (John
6:44, 65), and Paul taught the unregenerate man cannot do
what is pleasing to God and that there is none who seeks after
God (Romans 8:7-8, 3:10-11). But is anyone ready to say that
the thought of this passage is dependent upon reading into a
subordinate clause the concept of human free will and
autonomy? That Christ’s intercession is based upon human
beings “enabling” Him to intercede for them? Christ makes
intercession for those who draw near to God through Him.
These are the elect (John 6:37 makes the same point). He
intercedes only for them, not for anyone else.
Third, this leads us to another key truth: Christ intercedes
for all for whom He dies. Just as the high priest could not
intercede for anyone without a sacrifice, so too Christ does not
intercede for anyone for whom He does not make atonement.
Christ intercedes for all for whom He dies since intercession is
simply the presentation of the finished work of Calvary before
the Father. The scope of the atonement, then, is the scope of
intercession. Yet, we saw in Romans that Christ intercedes for
God’s elect, and here the same group is in view, those who
come unto God by Him. And since His act of intercession is
given as the explanation for Christ’s ability to save forever, it
follows inexorably that Christ’s death saves all those for whom
it is made. This is clearly the Reformed doctrine, not the
Arminian doctrine. And if the Arminian says, “just because
Christ intercedes for someone does not mean they will be
saved,” we respond with the context of the passage: the writer
is demonstrating the superiority of Christ to the old priests.
The old priests could indeed intercede for an individual to no
effect: if Christ can likewise intercede to no effect, how is this
an argument for Christ’s superiority? It isn’t. Therefore, the
passage cannot be made consistent with the Arminian view.
This truth of the superiority of Christ continues on through
the next chapters, all cementing our belief in the particularity
of the redemptive work of Christ. In chapter 8 of Hebrews we
are told that Christ inaugurates a “better covenant, which has
been enacted on better promises.” The New Covenant differs
from the Old primarily in the perfection of the work of the
Mediator. In the New Covenant God works internally: He
writes His law upon their hearts, He enters into a personal
relationship with all of them so that they all know Him, and He
is merciful to their iniquities and remembers their sins no more
(Hebrews 8:10-13).
This better covenant leads to a better divine service, a
heavenly one, and a heavenly tabernacle, where Christ enters
into the holy place:
But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good
things to come, He entered through the greater and
more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is
to say, not of this creation; and not through the blood
of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He
entered the holy place once for all, having obtained
eternal redemption. For if the blood of goats and bulls
and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who have
been defiled sanctify for the cleansing of the flesh,
how much more will the blood of Christ, who through
the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to
God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to
serve the living God? (Hebrews 9:11-14)
Christ enters the holy place “once for all.” This is a temporal
statement (once for all time) not a statement of scope (once for
all individuals).8 He enters once, not like the old priest who
had to enter each year, and He does so having obtained eternal
redemption. The old priest could never claim that: the old
priest had to enter over and over and over again, proving the
inadequacy of that system. But we need to realize that the
person promoting the universal view of atonement encounters
a real problem here. Such a person is promoting a theoretical
redemption. What, exactly, had Christ “obtained” in their
view? Are we to understand these words to mean that Christ
had obtained “the savability” of mankind? Is this what “eternal
redemption” means? Not at all.
 The writer provides further evidence of what it means to
“obtain eternal redemption.” He says that Christ “at the
consummation of the ages has been manifested to put away sin
by the sacrifice of Himself” (9:26). What does it mean to “put
away” sin? If His self-sacrifice puts away sin, how can any
man for whom Christ died be held accountable for those sins?
Such involves “double jeopardy,” the punishment of Christ
and the punishment of the man for the same sins! This is not
the intention of Scripture.
This comes to full fruition in chapter ten when the argument
reaches a crescendo. The repetitive nature of the sacrifices of
the old system shows that they are imperfect (Hebrews 10:1-
4). This throws the uniqueness of the sacrifice of Christ into
the forefront:
By this will we have been sanctified through the
offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And
every priest stands daily ministering and offering time
after time the same sacrifices, which can never take
away sins; but He, having offered one sacrifice for
sins for all time, SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD,
waiting from that time onward UNTIL HIS ENEMIES BE
MADE A FOOTSTOOL FOR HIS FEET. For by one offering
He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.
(Hebrews 10:10-14)
What does the one offering of the body of Jesus Christ
accomplish? The setting apart of believers. The passage does
not say, “By the one offering of the body of Jesus Christ it has
been made possible for people to be sanctified if they will only
exercise free will.” The atonement of Christ accomplishes
something with certainty, and unless one sees the truth of the
elect of God running through the pages of Scripture such
passages will make no sense.
The contrast is repeated by reference to the ineffective
repetitive sacrifices of the old priests. Christ does not stand
daily, but is seated at the right hand of God. The priest could
not sit down because his work was never done. Christ’s is
done, “for by one offering He has perfected for all time those
who are sanctified.” The one-time offering of Christ perfects
forever those who are sanctified. No additions necessary on
the part of man. No sacraments or works of merit are needed.
Christ’s perfect offering does what the old sacrifices could
never do: as Jesus said, “It is finished.” It is perfect, complete,
done.
The beautiful consistency of the Scriptures as God-breathed
revelation bears out this understanding of the intention of the
writer to the Hebrews. One of the passages that (needlessly)
troubles many Christians comes at the conclusion of Hebrews
chapter 10. The book of Hebrews is written to demonstrate the
superiority of Christ to those in the congregation who might be
tempted to return to the old ways of the Jewish system. Not
knowing who in the gathered people are truly of the elect
requires the elder in the congregation to issue warnings and
plead with all to hear well the truth of God. This comes out in
Hebrews 10:26-29:
For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the
knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a
sacrifice for sins, but a terrifying expectation of
judgment and THE FURY OF A FIRE WHICH WILL COMSUME
THE ADVERSARIES. Anyone who has set aside the Law
of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two
or three witnesses. How much severer punishment do
you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot
the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood
of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has
insulted the Spirit of grace? (Hebrews 10:26-29)
This strong warning passage is often cited as evidence that one
can lose salvation. But taken in its own context such is not the
case at all. It is a warning to anyone who would have a
“knowledge of the truth” and yet, despite this, go back to the
old ways, the old sacrifices. There are no more sacrifices, now
that the final and perfect sacrifice has been offered. To go back
is to treat the blood of Christ as a “common” thing.9 The error
that is often made in regards to this passage is to understand
“by which he was sanctified” to refer to the person who goes
on sinning willfully against the blood of Christ.
Grammatically, the phrase “by which he was sanctified” can
refer to 1) the apostate, 2) Christ, the Son of God, or 3) to a
general concept best rendered, “by which sanctification is
provided.” But remembering yet again the argument of the
writer we see that the writer is referring to Christ as the one
who is sanctified, set apart, shown to be holy, by His own
sacrifice, and that this is why it is such a terrible thing to know
of the power and purpose of Christ’s blood and yet treat it as
“common,” like any of the sacrifices of goats and bulls offered
under the old system. John Owen mentions the view that the
“he” refers to the apostate,10 but then says,
But the design of the apostle in the context leads
plainly to another application of these words. It is
Christ himself that is spoken of, who was sanctified
and dedicated unto God to be an eternal high priest, by
the blood of the covenant which he offered unto God,
as I have showed before. The priests of old were
dedicated and sanctified unto their office by another,
and the sacrifices which he offered for them; they
could not sanctify themselves: so were Aaron and his
sons sanctified by Moses, antecedently unto their
offering any sacrifice themselves. But no outward act
of men or angels could unto this purpose pass on the
Son of God. He was to be the priest himself, the
sacrificer himself,—to dedicate, consecrate, and
sanctify himself, by his own sacrifice, in concurrence
with the actings of God the Father in his suffering. See
John xvii. 19; Heb. ii. 10, v. 7, 9, ix. 11, 12. That
precious blood of Christ, wherein or whereby he was
sanctified, and dedicated unto God as the eternal high
priest of the church, this they esteemed “an unholy
thing;” that is, such as would have no such effect as to
consecrate him unto God and his office.11
The dire warning of this passage, then, comes from
understanding that there is no more sacrifice for sins. Christ
has offered Himself once and has, thereby, perfected those for
whom He dies. To treat that perfect sacrifice, then, as
“common” by going back to the repetitive sacrifices of the old
system is to spit in the very face of the Son of God. What kind
of punishment, indeed, is fitting in such a situation!

The Divine Substitute

This God-honoring, Christ-exalting understanding of a
finished, perfect work runs throughout the Bible, and if it were
not for the traditions that so easily cling to our thinking, we
would see it everywhere. Indeed, everyone has heard what the
angel said about the coming Messiah:
She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name
Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.
(Matthew 1:21)
Why is the Lord even named “Jesus”? Because He will save
His people from their sins. We are not being trite to point out
the obvious: He is not called Jesus because He will make
savable a vague, indistinct general group of people who
exercise their free will to enable Him to redeem them. He is
called Jesus because 1) He has a people, His people, and 2) He
will save them from their sins. He does not try to save them,
seek long and hard to save them, but He saves them. He saves
them by making propitiation for their sins:
Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all
things, so that He might become a merciful and
faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to
make propitiation for the sins of the people. (Hebrews
2:17)
Propitiation is the sacrifice that brings forgiveness and takes
away wrath. What “people” is here in view? It is the “many
sons” of 2:10, those He “sanctifies” (2:11), “My brethren”
(2:12), “the children God gave Me” (2:13), those “subject to
slavery all their lives” (2:15), “the descendant of Abraham”
(2:16), “His brethren” (2:17). In light of this we understand the
statement of Hebrews 2:9, “so that by the grace of God He
might taste death for everyone.” Another passage often cited
without context by Arminians yet defined so plainly in the
text.12
Is it not the message of the Bible that Christ saves sinners?
By what warrant do we read the following verses and change
their meaning to “wants to save” or “makes savable” or “saves
synergistically with the assistance of the sinner himself”?
For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that
which was lost. (Luke 19:10)
It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full
acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to
save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all. (1
Timothy 1:15)
Just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but
to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.
(Matthew 20:28)
As a result of the anguish of His soul,
He will see it and be satisfied;
By His knowledge the Righteous One, My Servant,
will justify the many,
As He will bear their iniquities.
(Isaiah 53:11)
I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down
His life for the sheep.…even as the Father knows Me
and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the
sheep.
(John 10:11-15)
When we keep in mind the biblical teaching of the power and
completeness of Christ’s atonement we can see in these
passages the particularity that is so vehemently denied by the
Arminian. And how can we not see the particularity of the
following words:
I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I
who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I
now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God,
 who loved me and gave Himself up for me. (Galatians
2:20)
Consider for a moment how precious it is that the Christian
can say, “I have been crucified with Christ.” This is personal
atonement, personal substitution. We revel in the awesome
love of our Savior who loved us as individuals and gave
Himself up for us. For me! Me, the hate-filled sinner who
spurned Him and His love! How much less glorious is the
idea, “Christ loved a generic group and died so as to give them
the opportunity to possibly join the group and hence receive
certain benefits.”
But let us ask this question: can the justly condemned sinner
who stands upon the parapets of hell in eternity to come,
screaming in hatred toward the halls of heaven, say, “I was
crucified with Christ! He loved me and gave Himself up for
me!” Surely not! Can such a person say, “My sins have been
punished twice! First they were perfectly atoned for on the
cross of Christ, and now I am undergoing punishment for them
again here in hell!” The very idea causes us to recoil in horror.
You see, particular redemption means personal redemption.
Christ died in my place, not generically, but individually. What
a glorious Savior!
We have now seen many passages that teach the truth of
particular redemption. Many of these passages are not even
mentioned in CBF. Yet, we read these words in that work:
Not only are there no verses that, properly
understood, support limited atonement, but there are
numerous verses that teach unlimited atonement, that
is, that Christ died for the sins of all mankind.
Extreme Calvinists have not offered any satisfactory
interpretations of these texts that support limited
atonement.13
We assume the last phrase should read, “that support unlimited
atonement.” We know that the first assertion is untrue, as the
preceding discussion proves. But what about the rest? Do
Reformed theologians have no satisfactory explanations for
the texts that are cited in support of universal atonement? Let’s
find out.
Notes
1 B.B. Warfield, The Plan of Salvation (Eerdmans, n.d.), p.
94.
2 J. Kenneth Grider, “Arminianism” in Evangelical
Dictionary of Theology, Walter Elwell, ed., (Baker, 1984),
p. 80.
3 Robert Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the
Christian Faith (Thomas Nelson, 1998), p. 479
4 This is the clear assertion of the text: “in our behalf” or “in
our place” rend ύπὲρ ήμ ν. Likewise, “became” renders
γενόμενος, “being made” a curse in our place. If He
became the curse in our place, how can we then bear the
curse ourselves?
5 The Scripture here is without question: Christ bore, carried
away, took away the sins of God’s people in His body. The
term Peter uses, ἀναϕέρω, is closely connected with
sacrifice both in the New Testament (Hebrews 7:27, 9:28),
but as the normal translation of the Hebrew term , “to
offer sacrifice” in the LXX. If Christ has borne our sins,
how can we then be punished for them?
6 We note as well that this passage gives us the purpose of
Christ’s bearing our sins: “so that we might die to sin and
live to righteousness.” If Christ bears the sins of the
reprobate, His intention for them is frustrated by their
never dieing to sin and living to righteousness. Obviously,
His purpose is fulfilled in the elect.
7 For a full and most helpful substantiation of this meaning
of huper, see Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond
the Basics (Eerdmans, 1996), pp. 383-389
8 The Greek term is ἐϕάπαξ, “once for all time.” It is a
temporal adverb.
9 The Greek term translated “unclean” is κοινòν, common,
and by extension, unclean.
10 The person familiar with Owen’s comments on this passage
in The Death of Death in the Death of Christ should be
aware that Owen takes a different view in his commentary
on Hebrews. Owen wrote The Death of Death when he was
32 years of age. The commentary on Hebrews, comprising
seven volumes, was written more than two decades later.
The mature Owen, engaging in a purely exegetical work,
takes a different view than he did earlier. It does not seem
that Owen was even aware of the viewpoint that here
Christ is spoken of when he wrote The Death of Death.
11 John Owen, Commentary on the Book of Hebrews (Banner
of Truth Trust, 1996), 4:545-546.
12 CBF likewise provides exactly two sentences of
commentary on page 203, “Christ died for everyone, not
just the elect. This is the plain meaning of the text.” No
discussion of context, no discussion of the meaning of
propitiation.
13 Ibid., p. 192.
 Chapter 11

Particular Redemption

CBF does not discuss the biblical doctrine of the atonement,

nor does it interact with the Reformed doctrine on the issue.
There is no discussion of the passages we examined in the
previous chapter regarding the work of Christ in the book of
Hebrews. No attempt is made to explain how “propitiation”
can be merely theoretical when it refers to the actual taking
away of wrath. The relationship between intercession and
atonement is likewise left untouched. No positive,
Scripturally-based presentation is made of what the atonement
actually accomplishes. And while such works as John Owen’s
The Death of Death in the Death of Christ are mentioned, their
substantial exegetical presentations are not even noted, let
alone refuted. Other works, such as Gary Long’s Definite
Atonement are ignored, even though that work provides
extensive responses on such key passages as 2 Peter 2:1.
The arguments leveled against particular redemption, as we
noted earlier, are often really objections against particular
election. We will see this come out a number of times in the
responses noted below.
The exegesis offered by CBF on this topic is often
tremendously strained, or based upon objections that are
shallow at best. Note this use of Romans 5:6 where it is said
that “Christ died for the ungodly.” CBF asserts:
But it is not only the elect that are ungodly and
enemies of God, but also the non-elect. Therefore,
Christ must have died for the non-elect as well as for
the elect. Otherwise, He would not have died for all
the ungodly and enemies of God. Further, if Paul
meant Christ died only for the “elect” he could easily
have said it and avoided any misunderstanding. The
 word “elect” was a regular part of New Testament
vocabulary.…”1
In other words, “Unless the Bible uses the exact phrase ‘Christ
died only for the elect,’ then it can’t possibly be true.” A
moment of reflection reveals that Romans 5:6 is perfectly in
harmony with the Reformed position and the doctrinal truths
we saw in the preceding chapter. Christ died for the ungodly.
The elect, until they are regenerated, are fallen sons of Adam
as are all others. They are ungodly. Hence, the statement
“Christ died for the ungodly” is perfectly true. Further, all the
elect, until they are brought to faith in Christ, are enemies of
God, walking in the rebellious ways of the world (Eph. 2:1-3).
Hence, saying Christ reconciled those who were enemies of
God by His death is perfectly true and harmonious with the
biblical teaching of particular redemption. There is nothing in
the context that demands us to believe that the statement
“Christ died for the ungodly” means “Christ died for every
single ungodly person who has ever, or will ever, live.” Nor is
there any reason to believe that the reconciliation spoken of
here (personal reconciliation of human beings to God, not the
broader use of the term with regard to all creation used by Paul
in Colossians 1:20) is merely theoretical and non-salvific. This
kind of argumentation leads to such troubling conclusions as
asserting that it is the “plain teaching of other Scriptures” that
“Not all Christ died for will be saved.” This is the reasoning
offered:
The doctrine of limited atonement claims that all
Christ died for will be saved. But the above passages
and many others reveal that: (1) Christ died for all,
and (2) All will not be saved (cf. Matt. 25:41; Rev.
20:10). Thus, not all Christ died for will be saved. The
doctrine of limited atonement is contrary to the clear
teaching of Scripture.2
Such simplistic arguments ignore the vast mountain of
Reformed literature let alone the “plain teaching” of Hebrews
7-10 and Romans 8:31-34. Will readers of CBF be familiar
enough with the exegesis offered by Reformed writers to
recognize that the issues are not being dealt with in a truly
scholarly and fair manner?

The Issue of Calvin’s View of the

Atonement
Before entering into the specific responses offered by CBF
on the doctrine of particular redemption, it is important to
respond to the oft-repeated claim made by Dr. Geisler that
John Calvin was not a Calvinist. The only ground offered by
CBF upon which the distinction between “extreme Calvinists”
and “moderate Calvinists” can be based is the assertion that
Calvin did not believe in limited atonement. This comes out a
number of times in CBF, first in a footnote on page 20 where
the phrase “extreme Calvinist” is first used:
We use the term “extreme” rather than “hyper” since
hyper-Calvinism is used by some to designate a more
radical view known as “superlapsarianism,” which
entails double-predestination,…denies human
responsibility…, or nullifies concern for missions and
evangelism.
We should note that theologians we classify as
extreme Calvinists consider themselves simply
“Calvinists,” and would probably object to our
categorizing them in this manner. In their view,
anyone who does not espouse all five points of
Calvinism as they interpret them is not, strictly
speaking, a true Calvinist. Nonetheless, we call them
“extreme” Calvinists because they are more extreme
than John Calvin himself…and to distinguish them
from moderate Calvinists.

In passing we note that supralapsarianism3 is not the

equivalent of hyper-Calvinism. Be that as it may, how is it that
“extreme” Calvinists are more radical than John Calvin? One,
and only one reason, is ever offered:
 Even John Calvin was not an extreme Calvinist on
this point, for he believed that by Christ’s death “all
the sins of the world have been expiated.”
Commenting on the “many” for whom Christ died in
Mark 14:24, Calvin said, “The word many does not
mean a part of the world only, but the whole human
race.” This means that people like Jonathan Edwards,
John Gerstner, and R.C. Sproul, who believe in limited
atonement, are more extreme than John Calvin!
Hence, they have earned the title “extreme
Calvinists.”4
Knowing that such a statement can be challenged, Dr. Geisler
included an appendix titled “Was Calvin a Calvinist?” This
appendix amounts to a grand total of five pages of citations.
There is not the first attempt to interact with a single Reformed
work on the subject. Other than a reference to R.T. Kendall’s
Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649, no work of scholarship
is cited, referenced, or noted (including the responses written
by Calvinists to Kendall’s work). Only two of the passages
cited by Reformed authors who believe Calvin did hold to a
particular view of the atonement is cited, and even then, it
garners no response nor discussion, as we will see. Yet, despite
the complete failure to interact with any viewpoint other than
his own, Dr. Geisler concludes the appendix with these words:
Whatever else Calvin may have said to encourage
extreme Calvinism’s T-U-L-I-P, he certainly denied
limited atonement as they understand it. For Calvin,
the Atonement is universal in extent and limited only
in its application, namely, to those who believe.5
Please note the use of the word “certainly.” We honestly
cannot understand how one can make such a statement without
dealing in-depth with the readily available works that argue for
just the opposite conclusion. And when we take just a few
moments to examine some of Calvin’s statements, we will see
that it is “certain” that Calvin did not deny limited atonement.
And if that is the case, the entire nomenclature of “moderate
Calvinist” versus “extreme Calvinist” collapses.
 An in-depth analysis of Calvin’s view of the atonement is
beyond the scope of our response to CBF. However, the reader
is directed to the following works for the necessary
information upon which to make an informed decision:
William Cunningham, The Reformers and the
Theology of the Reformation, (Banner of Truth, 1989),
pp. 395-408.
Robert Peterson Sr., Calvin and the Atonement
(Mentor, 1999).
Paul Helm, Calvin and the Calvinists (Banner of
Truth, 1998).
Jonathan Rainbow, Will of God and the Cross : An
Historical and Theological Study of John Calvin’s
Doctrine of Limited Redemption (Pickwick
Publications, 1990).
It should be noted that some scholars conclude that we simply
cannot decide what Calvin’s view was. Others say we can, and
argue for both sides. But even the most cursory examination of
Calvin must provide more than a few isolated quotations that
do not even begin to take into consideration the consistency of
Calvin’s theology. What Calvin believed about election, the
deadness of man in sin, and the work of intercession must be
considered. CBF does not even attempt a fair review of Calvin
on this point.
The Fall, 1985 issue of the Westminster Theological Journal
contained a twenty-nine page article written by Roger Nicole
titled “John Calvin’s View of the Extent of the Atonement.”
Nicole offers the following arguments in favor of the belief
that Calvin did hold to a definite atonement:
1 Calvin’s strong emphasis upon the divine purpose points
us in this direction. “It seems difficult to imagine that
Calvin would posit as the purpose of Christ an indefinite,
hypothetical redemption, when at so many other points it
is plainly apparent that the specific elective purpose of
God is the controlling feature of his outlook.”6
2 Calvin often asserts that God’s purpose in election is
ultimate and that we cannot go behind it. “To assume a
hypothetical redemptive purpose more inclusive than the
election of grace is doing precisely what he precludes.”7
3 “Calvin makes it quite plain that he views repentance and
faith and all other recreative benefits of salvation to have
been merited for the elect by Christ. What Christ
accomplished on the cross is not so much to secure the
salvability of all humans, as actually to accomplish the
salvation of those whom he does redeem.”8
4 Calvin often connected in the same statement benefits
that are given to the elect alone together with references
to the effects of the death of Christ.
5 Calvin closely connects the priestly work of Christ in His
death with His work as intercessor. This is brought out
especially with reference to Calvin’s comments on John
17:9:
He openly declares that he does not pray for the
world, because he has no solicitude but about his own
flock, which he received from the hand of the Father. I
reply, the prayers which we offer for all are still
limited to the elect of God. We ought to pray that this
man, and that man, and every man, may be saved, and
thus include the whole human race, because we cannot
yet distinguish the elect from the reprobate; and yet,
while we desire the coming of the kingdom of God,
we likewise pray that God may destroy his enemies.
Besides, we learn from these words, that God chooses
out of the world those whom he thinks fit to choose to
be heirs of life, and that this distinction is not made
according to the merit of men, but depends on his
mere good-pleasure. For those who think that the
cause of election is in men must begin with faith.
Now, Christ expressly declares that they who are
given to him belong to the Father; and it is certain that
they are given so as to believe, and that faith flows
from this act of giving. If the origin of faith is this act
of giving, and if election comes before it in order and
 time, what remains but that we acknowledge that those
whom God wishes to be saved out of the world are
elected by free grace? Now since Christ prays for the
elect only, it is necessary for us to believe the doctrine
of election, if we wish that he should plead with the
Father for our salvation. A grievous injury, therefore,
is inflicted on believers by those persons who
endeavor to blot out the knowledge of election from
the hearts of believers, because they deprive them of
the pleading and intercession of the Son of God.9
“But if oblation and intercession are recognized to be
coextensive, they will both be universal or both be particular.
The clear-cut particularity of intercession becomes therefore a
telling argument for the equal particularity of the
atonement.”10
6 Calvin’s interpretation of the most popular texts used to
promote a universal saving intent shows that he had in
mind the particular elective purpose of God. “This is
explicitly brought to the fore in the commentaries in Ezek
18:32; John 3:16; 2 Pet 3:9. In the commentaries and
sermons on 1 Tim 2:4 and Titus 2:13 the word ‘all’ is
interpreted to refer to ‘all kinds or classes of men.’ In
relation to John 1:29 and 1 John 2:2 the word ‘world’ is
viewed as intending to transcend a nationalistic Jewish
particularism.” Obviously, the question is, if Calvin
disagrees with the universalist on every one of these
passages (all of which are cited with frequency by
Norman Geisler and interpreted consistently in opposition
to Calvin), why should he then do a sudden flip-flop and
agree on this universal intention of the atonement? Such
makes no sense at all.
7 The majority of the passages cited by Arminians who
seek to enlist Calvin’s support “may be alleviated by the
consideration that Calvin meant to place special emphasis
on the indiscriminate call of the gospel.” This is seen
throughout Calvin’s writings, even in the passage cited
above regarding John 17:9.
 8 “There are in Scripture as well as in Calvin passages
where the particular intent of Christ’s death is stressed.”
These include Matthew 1:21, John 15:13, Titus 2:14, etc.,
where Calvin’s comments provide a particular, not
universal, interpretation.
9 Calvin’s statement in response to Heshusius is especially
telling: “I should like to know how the wicked can eat the
flesh of Christ which was not crucified for them, and how
they can drink the blood which was not shed to expiate
their sins.”11
10 Calvin’s use of terms such as “reconciliation,”
“redemption,” and “propitiation” are inconsistent with a
universalistic conclusion. “The language of Calvin does
not fit a mere potential blessing which remains ineffective
pending some performance by the sinner, which would
then make it truly operative: it connotes a basic act of
God, who then sees to it that it is implemented unto the
salvation of all those he purposed to save.”12
11 Calvin fully understood and taught the concept of penal
substitution. “It is difficult to imagine that Calvin failed to
perceive the necessary link between substitution and
definite atonement, or that, having perceived it, he carried
on without giving regard to this matter!
12 Calvin’s Trinitarian view would lead him to believe in a
full unity amongst the divine Persons. “But universal
atonement introduces a fundamental disjunction between
the universal intent of the Son who gave himself for all
and the particular purpose of the Father who elected only
some people, and the Holy Spirit, who confers
regeneration, faith, and repentance to the elect only.”
13 Finally, how does one explain the swift move of
Reformed thought from an alleged universal view of
Calvin to the particular view of the first generation of his
disciples?
At the very least one thing is obvious: given CBF’s failure to
interact with any of these arguments the assertion that Calvin
“certainly” did not believe in particular redemption is left
without any foundation whatsoever. Therefore, since this
statement is the only basis for the “moderate/extreme”
Calvinist distinction, we must conclude the distinction is
arbitrary and erroneous.
Two quotes from Calvin should suffice to demonstrate that
Dr. Geisler has misunderstood his use of the word “world” and
“all men” in many of the passages he cites. CBF cites 1
Timothy 2:4 as supportive of a universal desire on God’s part
for salvation, and that this is its “plain meaning.”13 If Calvin
likewise saw this passage in a universalistic fashion, this
would lend support to Geisler’s theory. Yet, read Calvin’s own
words:
And may come to the acknowledgment of the truth.
Lastly, he demonstrates that God has at heart the
salvation of all, because he invites all to the
acknowledgment of his truth. This belongs to that kind
of argument in which the cause is: proved from the
effect; for, if “the gospel is the power of God for
salvation to every one that believeth” (Romans 1:16),
it is certain that all those to whom the gospel is
addressed are invited to the hope of eternal life. In
short, as the calling is a proof of the secret election, so
they whom God makes partakers of his gospel are
admitted by him to possess salvation; because the
gospel reveals to us the righteousness of God, which is
a sure entrance into life.
Hence we see the childish folly of those who
represent this passage to be opposed to predestination.
“If God” say they, “wishes all men indiscriminately to
be saved, it is false that some are predestined by his
eternal purpose to salvation, and others to perdition.”
They might have had some ground for saying this, if
Paul were speaking here about individual men;
although even then we should not have wanted the
means of replying to their argument; for, although the:
will of God ought not to be judged from his secret
decrees, when he reveals them to us by outward signs,
yet it does not therefore follow that he has not
 determined with himself what he intends to do as to
every individual man.
But I say nothing on that subject, because it has
nothing to do with this passage; for the Apostle simply
means, that there is no people and no rank in the world
that is excluded from salvation; because God wishes
that the gospel should be proclaimed to all without
exception. Now the preaching of the gospel gives life;
and hence he justly concludes that God invites all
equally to partake salvation. But the present discourse
relates to classes of men, and not to individual
persons; for his sole object is, to include in this
number princes and foreign nations. That God wishes
the doctrine of salvation to be enjoyed by them as well
as others, is evident from the passages already quoted,
and from other passages of a similar nature. Not
without good reason was it said, “Now, kings,
understand,” and again, in the same Psalm, “I will
give thee the Gentiles for an inheritance, and the ends
of the earth for a possession.” (Psalm 2:8-10.) In a
word, Paul intended to shew that it is our duty to
consider, not what kind of persons the princes at that
time were, but what God wished them to be. Now the
duty arising: out of that love which we owe to our
neighbor is, to be solicitous and to do our endeavor for
the salvation of all whom God includes in his calling,
and to testify this by godly prayers.14
This is the very interpretation that Dr. Geisler identifies as
“implausible.” If this interpretation of “all men” is read into
the passages cited from Calvin, however, it becomes plain that
Calvin did not hold the unlimited view of the atonement that
CBF claims. As to the word “world,” Calvin’s view is
exemplified by his comments on 1 John 2:2. This passage is
quoted by CBF. Yet, for some reason, it is seems as if CBF
thinks this quotation affirms a universal view of atonement. It
is highly educational to note that Dr. Geisler inserted a whole
series of italics into his rendition of Calvin’s words. Why is it
educational? Because he emphasizes the portions that seem to
support his thesis, but ignores the direct statements that
contradict him. Calvin scholars for centuries have cited this
passage as evidence of Calvin’s particularism. But note how
Geisler cites the passage:
He put this in for amplification, that believers might
be convinced that the expiation made by Christ
extends to all who by faith embrace the Gospel. But
here the question may be asked as to how the sins of
the whole world have been expiated. I pass over the
dreams of the fanatics, who make this a reason to
extend salvation to all the reprobate and even to Satan
himself. Such a monstrous idea is not worth refuting.
Those who want to avoid this absurdity have said that
Christ suffered sufficiently for the whole world but
effectively only for the elect. This solution has
commonly prevailed in the schools. Although I allow
for the truth of this, I deny that it fits this passage. For
John’s purpose was only to make this blessing
common to the whole Church. Therefore, under the
word ‘all’ [in 1 John 2:2] he does not include the
reprobate, but refers to all who would believe and
those who were scattered through various regions of
the earth. For, as is meet, the grace of Christ is really
made clear when it is declared to be the only salvation
of the world” (Comments on 1 John 2:2).15
Dr. Geisler then provides this interpretation:
Calvin clearly denies universalism and affirms the
sufficiency of Christ’s death for the whole world, even
though he denies that this particular passage can be
used to teach this.16
There is a clear error being committed here by Dr. Geisler. If
he wished to italicize the important element of the quote, he
would have italicized this statement: “Therefore, under the
word ‘all’ [in 1 John 2:2] he does not include the reprobate,
but refers to all who would believe and those who were
scattered through various regions of the earth.” This is the key
affirmation! Here Calvin completely contradicts Dr. Geisler’s
interpretation. In fact, as we will see below, CBF identifies the
idea expressed by Calvin (and earlier by Augustine) as “an
obvious case of eisegesis (reading into the text)” that “does not
deserve an extensive treatment.”17
Further, Geisler italicizes the assertions of others rather than
Calvin, yet then interprets these as being Calvin’s view! Calvin
believes John’s assertion is meant to give confidence to all
believers that Christ is their propitiation, but that this does not
mean that Christ’s death is offered for the reprobate. If we
interpret this in Calvin’s context his words are clear: it is
without question his assertion that when John says “the whole
world” he is saying this does not include the reprobate. This
means he does not believe Christ died for every single human
being. Dr. Geisler italicizes the statement of the schoolmen
about the sacrifice being “sufficient” for the world, but
“efficient” for the elect, despite the fact that Calvin denies this
is the meaning of the passage!
In conclusion, then, we see that the assertion that Calvin
“certainly” denied limited atonement, and that this means that
those who hold this view are “extreme Calvinists” is utterly
without substantiation, either in Calvin’s words or in the
readily available scholarly sources.

John 17:9
We saw in the previous chapter that the Lord Jesus in His
High Priestly prayer immediately before His sacrifice on
Calvary prayed for those whom the Father had given Him. He
specifically differentiated between the objects of His prayer
and “the world.” This distinction, introduced in a particularly
poignant salvific context, causes Arminian exegetes no end of
trouble.
Several important things should be noted in response
to this. First, the fact that Christ only prayed for the
elect in this passage does not in itself prove that He
never prayed for the non-elect at any time. If, as
extreme Calvinists admit, Jesus as a man could have
had negative answers to His prayers, then He could
 have prayed for some people who were not elect, even
if it is not recorded in Scripture. Many things Jesus did
are not recorded (cf. John 21:25).18
Such a response completely misses the reason the passage is
cited by Reformed exegetes. The context of John 17:9 is the
Lord’s High Priestly prayer. It is pure misdirection to even
introduce the idea of prayers receiving negative answers: is it
CBF’s assertion that the Father will give a negative answer to
the Son’s intercession for His people? We would surely hope
not, for such would be as unbiblical a position to take as could
be imagined! But the explanation continues to miss the mark:
Second, Christ prayed for non-elect persons. His
prayer, “ ‘Father, forgive them for they know not what
they do’ ” (Luke 23:34 KJV) undoubtedly included
people who were not elect.19
Given that Dr. Geisler posits that it is certain that Calvin did
not believe in particular redemption, his words might carry
some weight here:
If any one think that this does not agree well with
Peter’s sentiment, which I have just now quoted, the
answer is easy. For when Christ was moved by a
feeling of compassion to ask forgiveness from God for
his persecutors, this did not hinder him from
acquiescing in the righteous judgment of God, which
he knew to be ordained for reprobate and obstinate
men. Thus when Christ saw that both the Jewish
people and the soldiers raged against him with blind
fury, though their ignorance was not excusable, he had
pity on them, and presented himself as their
intercessor. Yet knowing that God would be an
avenger, he left to him the exercise of judgment
against the desperate. In this manner ought believers
also to restrain their feelings in enduring distresses, so
as to desire the salvation of their persecutors, and yet
to rest assured that their life is under the protection of
God, and, relying on this consolation, that the
licentiousness of wicked men will not in the end
 remain unpunished, not to faint under the burden of
the cross.20
Then note these words that are added:
It is probable, however, that Christ did not pray for
all indiscriminately, but only for the wretched
multitude, who were carried away by inconsiderate
zeal, and not by premeditated wickedness. For since
the scribes and priests were persons in regard to whom
no ground was left for hope, it would have been in
vain for him to pray for them. Nor can it be doubted
that this prayer was heard by the heavenly Father, and
that this was the cause why many of the people
afterwards drank by faith the blood which they had
shed.21
CBF continues,
Further, Jesus indirectly prayed for the world by
asking us to “‘pray the Lord of the harvest to send out
laborers into His harvest’” (Luke 10:2 KJV), yet
knowing that not all would be saved (Matt. 13:28-30).
In fact, He wept for unbelievers (Matt. 23:37) and
prayed that unbelievers would be saved (John
11:42).22
God has ordained the means as well as the ends: the prayer of
Luke 10:2 is that the Lord would send out workers into the
harvest. To confuse this with a prayer by our High Priest in
behalf of the world in general is to stretch a passage far
beyond the breaking point. We have seen the error of this use
of Matthew 23:37, and John 11:42 speaks of the Lord praying
to the Father with reference to being “heard” by the Father so
that people would believe. Obviously, this has nothing to do
with Jesus praying for unbelievers, since, of course, that would
require the assumption that none of those gathered around
were of the elect.
Third, even if Jesus had not prayed for the non-elect,
still other passages of the New Testament reveal that
 the apostle Paul did, and he exhorts us to do the
same.23
Of course, there is a vast difference between Paul and the Lord
Jesus: Paul is not our High Priest. Paul is not our Intercessor.
Paul does not have supernatural knowledge concerning the
identity of the elect. Of course Paul prays in a way different
than the incarnate Lord! The fact remains that when praying as
our High Priest specifically about the salvation of the elect
Christ excludes those who are not His. CBF has failed to
provide a reason to reject the Reformed understanding of this
passage. So why does CBF miss the important elements of
passages such as this? The concluding comment on John 17:9
reveals the reason: “The important thing is that Jesus wanted
everyone to be His children (Matthew 23:37; 1 Tim. 2:4-6; 2
Peter 3:9).”

Mark 10:45 and Real Versus Potential

Atonement
In the context of responding to Mark 10:45 CBF deals with
the vital difference between the Reformed belief in an actual
atonement and the inconsistent Arminian (i.e., the position of
CBF that claims to affirm substitutionary atonement: historic
Arminianism recognizes the inconsistency of holding to this
view and therefore adopts the governmental view) position
that renders the atonement a mere potentiality. This will serve
to address a number of key issues that define the debate. In
reference to substitutionary atonement Dr. Geisler says,
But extreme Calvinists insist that logic demands that
if Christ died for all, then all would be saved. For if
Christ was substituted for their sin, then He paid for it
and they are free. But the Bible teaches that all will
not be saved.…Therefore, they argue that Christ could
not have died for the sins of all mankind.24
This accurately summarizes the position we have put forward:
that the Bible’s teaching on the intention and effect of the
atonement precludes us from believing that Christ died to
make men savable, but that He actually saved those for whom
He substituted. In fact, it is our assertion that the word
“substitution” should not be used of a merely potential
atonement, for such would destroy the personal aspect of the
death of Christ. Dr. Geisler begins by dismissing the Reformed
understanding as being based upon mere “speculative
inferences.” But seemingly he recognizes this is not enough
and continues:
Second, the inference is not logically necessary. That
a benefactor buys a gift and freely offers it to someone
does not mean that person must receive it. Likewise,
that Christ paid for our sins does not mean we must
accept the forgiveness of sins bought by His blood.25
By now the errors of the Arminian view here enunciated
should be clear. They are: 1) rejection of the biblical doctrine
of the positive decree of God; 2) rejection of the biblical
doctrine of the deadness of man in sin and his inability to do
anything that is pleasing to God (including “acceptance of
forgiveness of sins”); 3) rejection of the biblical doctrine of the
atonement, including its intention and result. The result is a
theoretical atonement that saves no one: His blood may “buy”
forgiveness, but our choice determines whether the entire work
of Christ in our behalf will be a success or a failure.26 This
empties the word “paid” of its meaning. If someone pays my
bill, I no longer owe the money. The Arminian view leaves us
with a contractual situation where Christ offers to pay the bill
based upon the performance of the free act of faith. The true
consequences of this come out in this key passage:
Finally, that Christ’s death made everyone savable
does not thereby mean that everyone is saved. His
death on the Cross made salvation possible for all men
but not actual–it is not actual until they receive it by
faith. This should not be difficult for an extreme
Calvinist to understand. For even though the elect
were chosen in Christ, the Lamb slain before the
creation of the world (Rev. 13:8; Eph. 1:4),
nonetheless, they were not actually saved until God
 regenerated and justified them. Before the moment in
time when they were regenerated, the elect were not
saved actually but only potentially. Salvation, then,
can be provided for all without it being applied to all.
There is enough Bread of Life put on the table by
Christ for the whole world, even though only the elect
partake of it. The Water of Life is there for “whoever”
(all) to drink (John 4:14), even though many refuse to
do so.27
Given how tremendously popular this type of argument is, we
need to provide a thorough response. First, this is a vitally
important claim:
Finally, that Christ’s death made everyone savable
does not thereby mean that everyone is saved. His
death on the Cross made salvation possible for all men
but not actual–it is not actual until they receive it by
faith.
There is an element of truth here in the sense that until the
point of regeneration, the benefits of Christ’s death are not
applied to the elect. But, the vast chasm that separates this
teaching and the Reformed doctrine must be understood. The
certainty of the application of the benefits of Christ’s work is
found in the fact that the elect are known personally to God
due to His decree: therefore, Christ substitutes for them
personally in His death, assuring the application of the
benefits of His death in the life of each individual who has
received God’s sovereign grace in eternity past. The salvation
of the elect is therefore certain not because God passively
knows who will believe, but because God’s decree makes the
elect a reality (even before we, who live long after the cross,
are born) so that they can be intimately joined with Christ in
His death upon the cross. As Paul said, “I have been crucified
with Christ.” This is the statement of every one of the
redeemed, but may we never teach that this is a statement that
can be uttered by the rebel God-hater in hell!
Contrast this with the view enunciated by Dr. Geisler: given
his assertion of the overriding freedom of the will of man and
the fact that the “list” of the elect is not made up without
reference to the free actions of man, it follows that the death of
Christ must be only potential. It cannot actually make certain
the application of that death to any particular person since the
final decision for salvation is not an eternal decree but the free
choices of men in time. Dr. Geisler teaches that it is Christ’s
intention and desire to save every single individual person so
that He “substitutes” for them. But how can this be? If He
takes the place of every single individual, does this result in
savability or salvation? Are we to understand that the
difference between “savability” and “salvation” is “the act of
free will called faith”? What does “faith” do to change a mere
possibility into reality? If men are always free, does this not
mean that at any time a person may “activate” this
“substitutionary atonement” and thereby become saved? Why
would this be different with reference to a person in hell? If
Christ truly substituted for all those in hell, why could they
not, if they remain free, simply “activate” the substitution that
was made for them?
The assertion above confuses the issue as well. The death of
Christ took place in time. We live long after that time. Hence,
the work of salvation must be applied to us in our time-frame.
The real question is, “Does the death of Christ make it certain
that any single individual will, during their lives, receive the
benefits of the substitutionary atonement of Christ, so that they
will enter into that personal relationship with Him having been
forgiven all their sins at Calvary?” The Reformed say yes, the
Arminians say no. The Arminian says it is possible for any
person at any time to “actuate” the potential salvation that is
offered, but there is no guarantee that anyone will do so. It is
all up to man. Next,
This should not be difficult for an extreme Calvinist
to understand. For even though the elect were chosen
in Christ, the Lamb slain before the creation of the
world (Rev. 13:8; Eph. 1:4), nonetheless, they were
not actually saved until God regenerated and justified
them. Before the moment in time when they were
regenerated, the elect were not saved actually but only
 potentially. Salvation, then, can be provided for all
without it being applied to all.
The problem with this argument is that it misses the entire
point: we are not saying that God completed and applied the
entire work of salvation to the elect at the cross. Such would
be impossible since most of the elect were not yet born. What
we are saying is that the elect were joined to Christ in His
death so that they can all say “I was crucified with Christ.”
What we are saying is that the unregenerate man in hell can
never say “I was crucified with Christ.” What we are saying is
that it is equivocation to say “Before the moment in time when
they were regenerated, the elect were not saved actually but
only potentially.” What does “potentially” mean? That there
was some doubt involved?
You see, Dr. Geisler differentiates between the terms
“potential” and “applied,” but in the process inserts great
confusion. The death of Christ obtained eternal redemption,
not possibly, but with certainty. The elect were joined with
Christ so that no possibility exists of their not receiving the
benefits of their being joined to Christ. He procured actual
forgiveness of sins in their place. Yes, this great benefit will be
applied to them in time, but that does not reduce the certainty
of its application to a mere possibility.
The sins of the elect people of God were nailed to the cross
of Christ and no others. This is the difference, then: the
Arminian says all sins committed by all men are nailed to the
cross of Calvary and borne in His body on the tree. The
Reformed says if this is so then they cannot be borne by
anyone else at any time. It is not a matter of Christ
“potentially” bearing sin: either He bore it or He didn’t. If He
did, those sins are forgiven. The fact that the elect will only
come to know of this great benefit when God, by His grace,
regenerates them, brings them out of darkness and into His
light, and gives them the knowledge of what Christ did for
them long before they were born, does not make His work in
their behalf a mere potentiality.
We cannot help but agree wholeheartedly with the words of
Charles Spurgeon:
 Let the Christian feel that the teaching which lowers
the work of Christ, makes it dependent upon the will
of man as to its effect, puts the cross on the ground,
and saith, “That blood is shed, but it may be shed in
vain, shed in vain for you,” — let us all feel that such
teaching cometh not from the Spirit of God. That
teaching it is which, pointing to the, cross, saith, “He
shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be
satisfied;” that teaching which makes the atonement a
true atonement which put away the vindictive justice
of God for ever from every soul for whom that
atonement was offered, exalts Christ, and, therefore, it
is a teaching which comes from the Spirit of God.
When your heart is brought to rest upon what Christ
has done, when, laying aside all confidence in your
own works, knowledge, prayings, doings, or
believings, you come to rest upon what Christ has
done in its simplicity, then is Jesus Christ exalted in
your heart, and it must have been the work of the
Spirit of divine grace. The person, then, and the work
of Christ are exalted.28
Dr. Geisler continues the theme a few pages later:
The first thing to note is that this objection is a form
of special pleading, based on a different view of
substitution. Of course, if substitution is automatic,
then everyone for whom Christ is substituted will
automatically be saved. But substitution need not be
automatic; a penalty can be paid without it
automatically taking effect.29
Is this true? What if the substitution involves death? If a
person bears the sins of another, upon what basis can the
penalty for those sins be brought to bear a second time? This is
why historic Arminians reject substitutionary atonement and
why the “moderate Calvinist” who uses this Reformed phrase
finds himself in such contradiction. Ponder for a moment these
words in light of the Bible’s teaching on the meaning of the
term “propitiation”:
 For instance, the money can be given to pay a
friend’s debt without the person being willing to
receive it. Those, like myself, who accept the
substitutionary atonement but reject limited atonement
simply believe that Christ’s payment for the sins of all
mankind did not automatically save them; it simply
made them savable. It did not automatically apply the
saving grace of God into a person’s life. It simply
satisfied (propitiated) God on their behalf (1 John 2:2),
awaiting their faith to receive God’s unconditional gift
of salvation, which was made possible by Christ’s
atonement.30
This is not substitutionary atonement. It is another instance
where a historic term is being redefined. If God is propitiated
in behalf of all men, upon what basis can God punish them in
hell for eternity? How can a truly propitiatory, substitutionary
atonement make men “savable” but not actually save?
Remember, we are not here speaking of the fact that God
applies the work of Christ in the elect’s life at a point in time:
the real issue is the assertion of what the death of Christ does
(or doesn’t do) for the non-elect. If God is “satisfied on their
behalf” then what is left? The autonomous act of faith,
evidently. So is God satisfied or not? Does Christ’s death
result in 99% satisfaction, with the 1% satisfaction coming
from man’s faith? CBF equates “satisfaction” with
propitiation. Yet, propitiation means “the sacrifice that brings
forgiveness of sins and removes wrath.” So, why is the non-
elect person lost for eternity if, in fact, the wrath of God was
poured out on Christ in their place? We are left with the utterly
untenable conclusion that God extracts double-payment for
these sins: He punished them first in Christ, and then He will
punish them for eternity in the non-elect, who could have
avoided this if they had simply exercised their free will and
believed.
Let us add one further difficulty to Dr. Geisler’s position.
Let us say there is a man named John Green. Given the
position enunciated in CBF, God, in His perfect
foreknowledge of the “free acts” of human beings, knows
perfectly (but did not decree) that John Green will not accept
Christ. Despite the best efforts of the Holy Spirit, it is known,
perfectly, that John Green will die rejecting the gospel and end
up in hell as a result. The view promoted in CBF would lead
us to believe that even though God the Father knew, infallibly,
that John Green would never accept the work of Christ in his
behalf, still God the Father causes Jesus Christ to suffer in
John Green’s place, bearing his sins and their penalty on the
cross. This is despite the fact that God likewise knows that He
will exact the same penalty for the same sins from John Green
in eternity to come! Why would God lay John Green’s sins on
Jesus knowing full well that Christ’s work would fail in his
behalf?
Later in the work Dr. Geisler again attacks the teaching that
it was Christ’s intention to procure salvation for His people
(Matthew 1:21) by dying in their place upon the cross. He
teaches that it was God’s intention instead to procure salvation
for all who would believe, and, since God wanted everyone to
believe, Christ died to provide salvation for all people. We
noted at the beginning of our examination of the atonement
that it is a highly emotional issue, and this comes out in the
conclusion offered by Dr. Geisler regarding the Reformed
proclamation of the atonement: “It is the denial that God really
wants all persons to be saved that is such a hideous error of
extreme Calvinism.”31 We leave the reader to determine if
such words are warranted.

John 1:29
The next day he saw Jesus coming to him and said,
“Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of
the world!” (John 1:29)
CBF presents this passage as a proof-text for universal
atonement by saying:
In light of the context and other uses of the word
“world” in John’s gospel, it is evident that the word
“world” here does not mean “the church” or “the
elect” but all fallen human beings.32
To which we reply that if the Lamb of God takes away the sin
of every single individual then that sin is gone and can no
longer be held against anyone. Obviously, given the teaching
of the Bible regarding how Christ takes away sin (by bearing it
in His body on the tree) we cannot help but point to the fact
that John uses the term “world” in many different ways. It
cannot be assumed that “world” means the same thing in every
context. In John “world” is used of those for whom Christ
does not pray (John 17:9), so obviously its meaning here
cannot simply be assumed. We will address this usage of
“world” as it is found in the more famous passage relevant to
this issue, 1 John 2:2.

I John 2:2
The final passage33 we will examine is the most often cited
by proponents of a universal, non-specific atonement.
My little children, I am writing these things to you so
that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an
Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous;
and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not
for ours only, but also for those of the whole world. (1
John 2:1-2)
The understanding presented by the Arminian is as follows:
Christ is the propitiation for the sins of all Christians, and not
for Christians only, but also for every single person in all
places and at all times. The Reformed understanding is that
Jesus Christ is the propitiation for the sins of all the Christians
to which John was writing, and not only them, but for all
Christians throughout the world, Jew and Gentile, at all times
and in all places.
If there was not so much emotional energy involved in the
debate the means of determining which interpretation is the
proper one would be agreed to by all: the meaning of
“propitiation” would be examined. The meaning of
“Advocate” would be deduced. And then John’s writings
would be studied to see how he uses the phrase “the whole
world” and what other phrases/descriptions could be paralleled
with it. For example, such a study would find the following
passage, also from the pen of John, relevant:
And they sang a new song, saying, “Worthy are You to
take the book and to break its seals; for You were
slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men
from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.
You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to
our God; and they will reign upon the earth.”
(Revelation 5:9-10)
Such a passage is relevant for it 1) speaks of Christ’s death and
His blood; 2) speaks of Christ’s “purchasing” men for God; 3)
presents a specific description of the extent of this work of
redemption, that being “men from every tribe and tongue and
people and nation.” We suggest that this passage, then, sheds
significant light upon 1 John 2:2, for it is obvious that the
passage in Revelation is not saying that Christ purchased every
man from every tribe, tongue, people and nation. Yet,
obviously, this is a parallel concept to “the world” in 1 John
2:2. Similarly we can find yet another passage in John’s
writings that provides parallel information:
But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that
year, said to them, “You know nothing at all, nor do
you take into account that it is expedient for you that
one man die for the people, and that the whole nation
not perish.” Now he did not say this on his own
initiative, but being high priest that year, he
prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation,
and not for the nation only, but in order that He might
also gather together into one the children of God who
are scattered abroad. (John 11:49-52)
Again we note the exegetical relevance: 1) the death of Christ
is in the context; 2) the object of the death of Christ is
discussed and identified; 3) a generic term “people” is more
closely identified as “the children of God who are scattered
abroad.” Clearly the point of the passage is that Christ dies
with a specific purpose in mind, so that He might gather
together into one the children of God who are scattered
abroad. Nothing is said about making them “savable.” His
death enables Him to gather them together in one (fulfilling
John 6:38-39). And we likewise see the direct relevance to 1
John 2:2 and the meaning of “the whole world.”
How does CBF rebut the Reformed position? Let’s examine
the attempt:
The groundless claim of extreme Calvinists is that
“world” here refers to “Christian world” namely, to
the elect. The later St. Augustine said John here
“means ‘of the world,’ all the faithful scattered
throughout the whole earth.” This is such an obvious
case of eisegesis (reading into the text) that it does not
deserve an extensive treatment.34
The fact that Dr. Geisler either is unaware of the comments we
just provided (which are found in any number of Reformed
works on the subject) or chooses to ignore them does not make
the claim, drawn from honest and contextual exegesis of the
text, “groundless.” And given the large number of examples of
eisegesis we have identified thus far in CBF, we believe this
accusation is more than premature and unfair. He continues:
One needs only to make a study of the generic use of
the word “world” (cosmos) in John’s writings to
confirm that he speaks here of the fallen, sinful world
(cf. John 1:10-11; 3:19).
We are not told why these passages are exegetically relevant
outside of the appearance of the word “world.” Why should
we accept the claim that, for example, John 3:19 is somehow
relevant to the meaning of the word “world” at 1 John 2:2?
Indeed, that passage says light has come “into the world.”
Does that mean “every single individual living on planet
earth” or “this worldly system”? We are given no substantial
arguments upon which to decide.
In fact, John defines his use of the term “world” only
a few verses later. In the same chapter, he claims
Christ’s death is a satisfaction for the “whole world.”
 He says, “Do not love the world or anything in the
world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the
Father is not in him. For everything in the world—the
cravings of sinful man, the lusts of his eyes and the
boasting of what he has and does—comes not from
the Father but from the world” (2:15-16). This is
clearly a description of the fallen, sinful world that
includes the non-elect—for whom Christ died (v. 2).35
We must respectfully point out that this is a tremendous
example of misinterpretation of a passage. Nowhere in 1 John
chapter 2 do we have John teaching that “Christ’s death is a
satisfaction for the whole world.” The passage cited tells us
not to love the world! Does Dr. Geisler not see the result of his
assertion? If this use of “world” is to be taken in the extensive,
universal sense of every single individual, this passage now
tells us not to love all men! Is this what he seriously wishes to
suggest? We would hope not. When the passage says that these
evil impulses come not from the Father but from the world, the
antithesis points to the world as the present evil system not the
universal population of mankind. We here have a classic
example of what Dr. Geisler accuses the Reformed of:
eisegesis, reading into the passage a meaning that it could
never have borne when first written.

The Great Spurgeon Question

Charles Spurgeon believed in particular redemption. He also
openly preached on the particular redemptive work of Christ.
In a well-known sermon he made these comments:
I have hurried over that, to come to the last point,
which is the sweetest of all. Jesus Christ, we are told
in our text, came into the world “to give his life a
ransom for many.” The greatness of Christ’s
redemption may be measured by the EXTENT OF
THE DESIGN OF IT. He gave his life “a ransom for
many.” I must now return to that controverted point
again. We are often told (I mean those of us who are
commonly nicknamed by the title of Calvinists — and
 we are not very much ashamed of that; we think that
Calvin, after all, knew more about the gospel than
almost any man who has ever lived, uninspired) — We
are often told that we limit the atonement of Christ,
because we say that Christ has not made a satisfaction
for all men, or all men would be saved. Now, our reply
to this is, that, on the other hand, our opponents limit
it: we do not. The Arminians say, Christ died for all
men. Ask them what they mean by it. Did Christ die
so as to secure the salvation of all men? They say,
“No, certainly not.” We ask them the next question —
Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of any man
in particular? They answer “No.” They are obliged to
admit this if they are consistent. They say “No, Christ
has died that any man may be saved if” — and then
follow certain conditions of salvation. We say, then,
we will just go back to the old statement — Christ did
not die so as beyond a doubt to secure the salvation of
anybody, did he? You must say “No;” you are obliged
to say so, for you believe that even after a man has
been pardoned, he may yet fall from grace, and perish.
Now, who is it that limits the death of Christ? Why,
you. You say that Christ did not die so as to infallibly
secure the salvation of anybody, We beg your pardon,
when you say we limit Christ’s death; we say, “No,
my dear sir, it is you that do it. We say Christ so died
that he infallibly secured the salvation of a multitude
that no man can number, who through Christ’s death
not only may be saved, but are saved, must be saved,
and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being
anything but saved. You are welcome to your
atonement; you may keep it. We will never renounce
ours for the sake of it.36
Spurgeon’s presentation has had such force over the years that
CBF felt compelled to attempt a response:
However, this inverted logic is a good example of
Spurgeon’s eloquence gone to seed. It is an upside
down logic indeed that can get anyone to think twice
about the assertion that limited atonement is more
 unlimited than unlimited atonement! For one thing,
the first assertion diverts the issue, for it is not a
question of securing salvation of all (this is
universalism) but of providing salvation for all (as in
moderate Calvinism and Arminianism), as opposed to
extreme Calvinism, which holds that Christ died to
provide and to secure the salvation of only the elect.
So first, Spurgeon in the case of (1) gives the right
answer to the wrong question! Further, in the case of
(2) he gives the wrong answer to the right question,
for both the moderate Calvinist and traditional
Arminian opponents of extreme Calvinism surely do
believe that Christ died to secure the salvation of the
elect and that God foreknew from all eternity exactly
who they would be.37
We suggest that it is CBF, not Spurgeon, who has “gone to
seed,” but not with eloquence. Instead, this is what happens
when free-willism “goes to seed” on the subject of the
atonement. Let’s see if CBF actually touches on Spurgeon’s
argument.
First, Geisler confuses categories when he attempts to avoid
the truth in Spurgeon’s statement that the Arminian limits the
atonement. Indeed, the response ignores the obvious fact that
the Arminian limits the effect of the atonement by saying it is
made in behalf of millions who will be lost for eternity. We
have already discussed this unbiblical limitation and how it is
utterly contrary to the meaning of “propitiation” and
“atonement.” “Unlimited atonement” is unlimited only in
relation to scope, but not in relation to accomplishment. On
the other hand, “limited atonement” is limited in scope, but is
unlimited in its results. This is obviously Spurgeon’s point, but
it is either missed, or misrepresented, by CBF.
Next, these words again confirm one of the main assertions
of our work: that there is no meaningful difference between
Geisler’s “moderate Calvinism” and Arminianism. When we
find them saying the same things all the time, why bother
differentiating them?
 The difference between the biblical atonement that actually
saves and the theoretical atonement of Arminianism (and, we
are forced to point out, Roman Catholicism) is seen clearly in
the response offered to Spurgeon’s assertion that Christ died to
secure the salvation of His people. Geisler sees the truth that
Arminians have seen all along: that if Christ’s death actually
saves in and of itself, then we must either embrace
universalism, or, particular redemption (Calvinism). Hence,
their choice is to deny that Christ’s death saves outside of the
addition of the “free will choice” of man, rendering the
atonement theoretical instead.
We have already examined the error of exchanging the
divine truth that Christ died to infallibly secure the salvation of
the elect with the idea that He died to make salvation a
theoretical possibility based upon the free actions of men. This
comes out yet once again as the real objection to particular
redemption surfaces: the identity of the elect must be based
upon God’s foreknowledge of their free actions. It cannot be
based upon God’s decree, for it is were, then salvation is
totally of God, and not of man.
Thanks be to God He saves perfectly in Christ!
Notes
1 Chosen But Free, p. 197.
2 Ibid., p. 203.
3 We assume that Dr. Geisler is referring to
supralapsarianism not “superlapsarianism.” For a
discussion of this issue, see Robert Reymond, A New
Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, (Thomas
Nelson: 1998), pp. 479-502.
4 Chosen But Free, p. 50.
5 Ibid., p. 160
6 Roger Nicole, “John Calvin’s View of the Extent of the
Atonement,” WTJ V47 #2, p. 220.
7 Ibid.
8 Ibid.
9 John Calvin, Commentary on the Gospel of John, in The
Comprehensive John Calvin Collection (Ages Digital
Library, 1998).
10 Nicole, “John Calvin’s View,” pp. 221-222.
11 CBF cites this very passage on page 160 and provides a
footnote in response that reads, “Calvin seems to have
verbally overstated his point here in the heat of the battle
against Heshusius’s heretical claim that even the wicked
can receive benefit from Communion ‘by the mouth bodily
without faith.’ In context his point is clear, namely, only
those who believe actually enter into the benefits of
Christ’s death.” Dr. Geisler is reading his own universalism
into a particularlist such as Calvin while ignoring all the
evidence that runs counter to this conclusion.
12 Nicole, pp. 223-224.
13 Chosen But Free, p. 201.
14 John Calvin, Commentary on 1 Timothy, in The
Comprehensive John Calvin Collection (Ages Digital
Library, 1998).
15 Chosen But Free, p. 159, italics inserted by Dr. Geisler.
16 Ibid., p. 160.
17 Ibid., pp. 194-195.
18 Ibid., p. 78.
19 Ibid.
20 John Calvin, Commentary on the Gospel of Luke in The
Comprehensive John Calvin Collection (Ages Digital
Library, 1998).
21 Ibid.
22 Chosen But Free, pp. 78-79.
23 Ibid., p. 79.
24 Ibid., p. 80.
25 Ibid., p. 80.
26 We cannot help but point out that Rome’s view is
frighteningly similar: Christ’s death merits grace that then
allows us, through the sacraments, to work out our own
salvation.
27 Chosen But Free, p. 81.
28 “The Spirit’s Office Toward Disciples,” a sermon preached
April 23, 1865, The Charles H. Spurgeon Collection (Ages
Digital Library, 1998).
29 Chosen But Free, p. 85.
30 Ibid., p. 85.
31 Ibid., p. 205.
32 Ibid., p. 192.
33 2 Peter 2:1ff, discussed on pp. 195-197, is fully discussed
in both John Owen’s The Death of Death in the Death of
Christ and more importantly in Gary Long’s Definite
Atonement (Backus Books, 1977). Dr. Geisler’s entire
 discussion of the meaning of ἀγοράζω and δεσπóτης is
answered in full by Long’s book, written twenty-two years
prior. This is noteworthy, for Geisler’s discussion ends
with, “In view of this New Testament usage, the burden of
proof rests on the extreme Calvinists to prove that Peter is
using this term in any other than a redemptive sense here.”
Long provided the evidence in full. For a summary see my
own comments at www.aomin.org/2PE21.html.
34 Chosen But Free, p. 194-195.
35 Ibid., p.195.
36 “Particular Redemption,” a sermon preached February 28,
1858 The C.H. Spurgeon Collection, (Ages Digital Library,
1998).
37 Chosen But Free, p. 204.
 Chapter 12

Irresistible Grace is Resurrection Power

Before we believed in Jesus, we were not capable of

those sacred actions which are now our daily delight.
We could not pray. We may have “said our prayers,”
as so many do, but, the living breath of true God-
inspired prayer was not in us. How could it be in us
while we were still dead in trespasses and sins? We
could not believe. How could we do so, when we had
not received the gift of faith from the ever-blessed
Spirit? The fact is, we were under a terrible bondage;
and just as a corpse is under bandage to death, and
cannot stir hand or foot, lip or eye, so were we under
bondage to sin and Satan. But we are under that
deadly bondage no longer; for we are living men, and
free men in Christ Jesus our Lord, who has overcome
that death for us.1
The doctrine of irresistible grace is easily understood. Once
we understand the condition of man in sin, that he is dead,
enslaved to a corrupt nature, incapable of doing what is
pleasing to God, we can fully understand the simple assertion
that God must raise the dead sinner to life. This is all, really,
the phrase means: it has nothing to do with sinners rebelling
against God and “resisting” Him in that way. It has nothing to
do with the fact that Christians often resist God’s grace in their
lives when they sin against Him. No, irresistible grace means
one thing: God raises dead sinners to life.
When we discussed man’s deadness in sin we emphasized
the fact that even though spiritually dead and alienated from
God, the unregenerate sinner is still very active in his or her
rebellion against God. In our actions and in our thoughts we
reject God’s sovereign right to rule over us and our natural
duty to serve and honor Him. So being dead in sin does not
mean we are passive in our rebellion.
Instead, the key issue has to do with abilities and inabilities.
Man is incapable of doing what is pleasing in God’s sight. It is
this inability that renders the myth of “free will” an empty
phrase: who cares if the will is “free” when the nature that
provides it with the desires upon which it acts is corrupt and
evil?
Irresistible grace, then, is simply the assertion that God’s
grace, expressed in the sovereignly free act of regeneration, is
irresistible. When God chooses to raise one of His elect to life
He can do so without asking permission of the dead creature.
This is seen clearly in the raising of Lazarus from the dead:
Jesus said to her, “Did I not say to you that if you
believe, you will see the glory of God?” So they
removed the stone. Then Jesus raised His eyes, and
said, “Father, I thank You that You have heard Me. I
knew that You always hear Me; but because of the
people standing around I said it, so that they may
believe that You sent Me.” When He had said these
things, He cried out with a loud voice, “Lazarus, come
forth.” The man who had died came forth, bound hand
and foot with wrappings, and his face was wrapped
around with a cloth. Jesus said to them, “Unbind him,
and let him go.” Therefore many of the Jews who
came to Mary, and saw what He had done, believed in
Him. (John 11:40-45)
On the level of spiritual capacity the unregenerate man is just
like Lazarus: dead, bound, incapable of “self-resurrection.” It
would be patently absurd to demand that Jesus first ask
Lazarus for “permission” to raise him to spiritual life. Corpses
are not known for engaging in a great deal of conversation.
No, before Lazarus can respond to Christ’s command to come
forth, something must happen. Corpses do not obey
commands, corpses do not move. Jesus changed Lazarus’
condition first: Lazarus’ heart was made new; his mind
revitalized. Blood began once again to course through his
veins. What was once dead is now alive, and can now hear the
voice of his beloved Lord, “Come forth!”
The term “irresistible” then must be understood as speaking
to the inability of dead sinners to resist resurrection to new
life. Since they are dead it is an empty (though often repeated)
cavil to accuse this doctrine of being tantamount to “forcing”
someone to be saved or engaging in “divine rape.” One can
just imagine a reporter from Jerusalem shoving a microphone
in the face of the newly resurrected Lazarus and saying,
“Lazarus, do you feel your rights were violated by Jesus in
forcing you back to life? Did He ask you if you wanted this to
happen first? Do you plan any legal action?” The bewildered
Lazarus would look at the reporter and say, “Are you kidding
me? I was dead! Jesus rescued me and called me to life! Those
were the most precious words I ever heard, when He called my
name and said, ‘Come forth!’ I owe everything to Him!”
This is the testimony of every believer. Out of the darkness
of death Christ called us. His call did not come without power,
no indeed! When Christ calls Lazarus the result is resurrection
power! So it is today. When Christ the Great Shepherd calls
His own, they hear His voice because He is the very source of
life and He raises them up to spiritual life. It is absurd to call
this gracious deliverance of the slave from the dungeon an
unkind act of “force.”
The Scriptural testimony to this truth comes from the many
passages we examined regarding total depravity and inability,
together with those that teach the absolute sovereignty of God.
Even if we could not present further direct biblical teaching,
these two truths alone would be enough to establish the
necessity of irresistible grace. But, of course, there is a
positive testimony to this truth in the Bible.

The Testimony of Scripture

Just as John’s writings bear eloquent testimony to the deadness
of man in sin (John 6:44, 6:65, 8:47), so too do they testify to
the necessity of the regenerating work of God. Jesus said to
Nicodemus:
 Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he
cannot see the kingdom of God. (John 3:3)
Every Christian knows the truth of these words, but how often
do we consider the order of the actions of “born again” and
“see the kingdom of God”? That is, by tradition it is taught
that a person sees the kingdom of God, desires to enter into it,
and then believes, resulting in regeneration. Yet, Jesus taught
that the unregenerate person cannot even see the kingdom of
God. Does this mean simply that the unregenerate person
cannot enter into the kingdom in some future day unless born
again? While true, is that all it means? We suggest the passage
goes beyond this. As we will see in the rest of John’s
testimony, spiritual birth precedes all actions of the spiritual
life, including, here, seeing the kingdom of God. Jesus
parallels “seeing” the kingdom with “entering” the kingdom in
the same passage:
Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one
is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the
kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is
flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do
not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must be born
again.’” (John 3:5-7)
The contrast between flesh and spirit, unregenerate and
regenerate, spiritually dead and spiritually alive, is complete,
making the new birth an absolute necessity. You must be born
again.
The relationship of faith and regeneration is central to the
topic of irresistible grace. Arminians contend strongly that
faith results in regeneration: Calvinists contend just as strongly
that one must be born again to be able to do something that is
clearly a function of the spiritual man and that is pleasing to
God: have saving faith. The Arminian says the natural man is
capable of true, saving faith, the Calvinist denies this. Does the
Bible speak to the issue of what comes first, regeneration or
faith?
The Scriptures tell us that we are saved by grace through
faith. Of this there is no doubt. But the question properly
focuses upon the nature of this faith and the relationship it
bears to regeneration. The previous considerations regarding
man’s deadness in sin point to the obvious conclusion that man
must first be made capable of such a spiritual activity as
saving faith, and the fact that the glory for salvation goes
solely to a sovereign, life-giving God bears upon this issue as
well. But there are Scriptural passages that bear directly upon
the topic:
Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of
God, and whoever loves the Father loves the child
born of Him. (1 John 5:1)
Generally such a passage would be understood to present the
following order of events: 1) Believe that Jesus is the Christ,
and 2) you are born of God. Yet, the original readers of this
text would not jump to such a conclusion. In reality, the most
literal rendering would be, “Every one believing (present tense
participle, ὀ πιστεύων, emphasizing both the on-going action
as well as the individuality of saving faith, “each believing
person”) that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God (a
perfect passive verb, γεγέννηται, “has been born by the agency
of God”). In John, “the one believing” is very common, and it
is no accident that the emphasis falls upon the on-going action
of faith. The one believing that Jesus is the Christ has been
born of God. If a person is now believing that Jesus is the
Christ in a true and saving fashion, they are doing so because,
as a completed action in the past, they were born again through
the work and agency of God. The verb “to be born” is passive:
they were caused to be born by another, that being God. They
did not cause their own spiritual birth. And what is the
inevitable result of being born of God? Belief that Jesus is the
Christ. Just as all those who are given by the Father to the Son
come to the Son (John 6:37), so too all who are spiritually
reborn through the work of God have as the object of their
faith the Lord Jesus Christ.
Some Arminian exegetes might object to this interpretation.
A means of testing the consistency of the exegesis offered of
this passage would be to ask how such a person interprets
these words from John:
 If you know that He is righteous, you know that
everyone also who practices righteousness is born of
Him. (1 John 2:29)
Every consistent Protestant would say, “the reason one
practices righteousness is because they have already been born
of Him. We do not practice righteousness so as to be born, but
instead the birth gives rise to the practice of righteousness.”
And such is quite true. But, this means that in 1 John 5:1 the
belief in Jesus as the Christ is the result of being born of Him.
The verbal parallel is exact: in 1 John 2:29 “the one practicing
righteousness” is a present participle; in 1 John 5:1 “the one
believing” is a present participle. In both passages the exact
same verb in the exact same form is used (γεγέννηται).
Therefore, sheer consistency leads one to the conclusion that
divine birth precedes and is the grounds of both faith in Christ
as well as good works.
The testimony to the fact that God’s work of grace precedes
any human action can be found all through the text of
Scripture. Luke knew it well:
A woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a
seller of purple fabrics, a worshiper of God, was
listening; and the Lord opened her heart to respond to
the things spoken by Paul. (Acts 16:14)
It is no response to say that the opening of Lydia’s heart was a
mere “moving” of God upon her that in essence brought her to
a moral neutral point, leaving the final decision to her. The
obvious question is, why would God have to open her heart
and to what end? The text tells us why He engaged in this
supernatural action: so that Lydia would “respond” to the
things spoken by Paul. God had a specific purpose in what He
was doing, that being the acceptance of the preached Word.
But if saving faith in response to the preaching of the Gospel
is the ability of every man and woman, why did God have to
open Lydia’s heart? Obviously, such a question begins with a
flawed assumption, as we have seen. God had to take out that
heart of stone and put in Lydia a heart of flesh (Ezekiel 36:26)
so that she would respond to the message of the Cross. All of
the Corinthians were reminded of this truth by Paul:
 For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not
many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty,
not many noble; but God has chosen the foolish things
of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen
the weak things of the world to shame the things
which are strong, and the base things of the world and
the despised God has chosen, the things that are not,
so that He may nullify the things that are, so that no
man may boast before God. But by His doing you are
in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God,
and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption,
so that, just as it is written, “LET HIM WHO BOASTS,
BOAST IN THE LORD.” (1 Corinthians 1:26-31)

God has cut out every ground of boasting by choosing to save

in a way that confounds the wisdom of men. No man can boast
before God. Notice a small phrase that is often overlooked:
“But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus.…” The text reads,
ἐξ αύτο , “by means of Him, from Him.” Is it by my act of
free will, or God’s act of free will, that I am in Christ Jesus?
Every believer must ask this question. It is not enough to limit
God’s free will to making a plan available. The question is not
“Is God ultimately the source of the plan of salvation?” Even
the Judaizers in Galatia, who were placed under the curse of
God as false teachers in Galatians 1:6-9, could say that. The
question is, Who, ultimately, is responsible for my union with
Jesus Christ? God is both the one who is the origin and source
of salvation in general, and the one who powerfully,
purposefully, and perfectly draws His elect people into blessed
union with Jesus Christ. The Arminian simply cannot allow
this freedom to God. The Scripture knows no other doctrine.
Paul knew this truth doctrinally and experientially:
But when God, who had set me apart even from my
mother’s womb and called me through His grace, was
pleased to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach
Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately
consult with flesh and blood, (Galatians 1:15-16)
If anyone knew that the idea of “free will” was a myth, it was
Paul. It was not free will that knocked Paul to the ground on
the road to Damascus. It was not free will that blinded him.
Paul was not “seeking after God” nor the Savior, Jesus Christ
on that day when God chose to reveal His Son to him. No,
God determined the day and the hour, and Paul was only
happy to oblige. He preached a powerful grace, a grace that
saves rebel sinners hard of heart, a grace that stops the elect in
their tracks and changes them. He knew nothing of a grace that
tries and tries, and fails and fails. It is powerful grace,
purposeful grace, sovereign grace that lies at the base of his
words to Titus:
He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have
done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by
the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy
Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through
Jesus Christ our Savior, (Titus 3:5-6)
Saving grace that brings the gift of faith. A mighty God who
saves His elect. This is the biblical presentation.

The Gift of Faith

Sovereign grace is offensive to the Arminian for it crushes
human pride and exalts the Potter’s freedom. The necessary
corollary to irresistible grace is the biblical truth that faith is a
gift from God. Since this is a subject particularly reprehensible
to CBF, we will here only present some of the more obvious
passages that teach this truth and leave a fuller defense of the
Reformed position for the next chapter where we respond to
Dr. Geisler’s assertions.
Paul began many of his epistles with thanksgiving to God
for the love and the faith of the Christians to whom he was
writing. For example:
We give thanks to God, the Father of our Lord Jesus
Christ, praying always for you, since we heard of your
faith in Christ Jesus and the love which you have for
all the saints; (Colossians 1:3-4)
 We ought always to give thanks to God for you,
brethren, as is only fitting, because your faith is
greatly enlarged, and the love of each one of you
toward one another grows ever greater; (2
Thessalonians 1:3)
Why should we thank God for the faithfulness of Christians?
Why should God be thanked when we hear of the faith of
others, or see their faith increasing? If faith is something
within the capacity of every unregenerate hater of God, why
should we thank God when one person exercises it? Unless, of
course, faith finds its origin in God Himself and is, as we
believe, a gift? That is what Paul taught:
Peace be to the brethren, and love with faith, from
God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Grace be
with all those who love our Lord Jesus Christ with
incorruptible love. (Ephesians 6:23-24)
Christian peace, Christian love, and Christian faith, all come
“from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.” Note how
love and peace and faith appear in this famous passage, also
showing that they come not from us, but from God:
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience,
kindness, goodness, faithfulness, (Galatians 5:22)
While the translation speaks of “faithfulness,” the Greek word
is simply “faith.” Paul taught this even more explicitly to the
Philippians:
For to you it has been granted for Christ’s sake, not
only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake,
(Philippians 1:29)
Here Paul speaks of two things that have been “granted” to
Christians. The term “granted” is the Greek term ἐχαρίσθη
from the term charizomai, “to give as a gift.” And what has
been “granted” to believers? The eye seems drawn to the final
phrase, “to suffer for His sake.” This is what seems to take up
the mind when reading the passage. It has been granted as a
gift to suffer for Christ! What a strange thought for many
today who have not experienced persecution and suffering, but
it surely was not to those to whom Paul was writing. But just
as suffering is not something brought about by our “free will,”
neither is the first thing granted to us: to believe in Christ.
This is the normal term used for saving faith (πιστεύειν). God
has granted to us to believe in Christ. Why would this be if, as
we are told, anyone can πιστεύειν, can “believe”?
The writer to the Hebrews knew something about the origin
of faith that is vital to understand as well:
Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses
surrounding us, let us also lay aside every
encumbrance and the sin which so easily entangles us,
and let us run with endurance the race that is set
before us, fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and
perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before Him
endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat
down at the right hand of the throne of God. (Hebrews
12:1-2)
Jesus is described as the “author and perfecter” of faith. The
Greek words chosen by the author are most interesting:
ἀρχηγòν καὶ τελειωτὴ ν. Archegon refers to the origin, source,
beginning, and then by extension, author. Teleiotes refers to
one who completes and perfects. Consider what this means:
Jesus is the origin and source of faith, the goal of faith, the one
who completes and perfects faith. It surely does not seem that
much room is left for the pot to boast about contributing his
free will act of faith, does it? For the Christian these are
precious words. When we are weak, when we are discouraged,
when it seems that we cannot possibly go on, what is our sole
confidence? Christ. God will not abandon His own. We are
kept indeed by the power of faith, but it is not a merely human
faith, but a divine faith, a gift from God! Why do some
stumble and fall while others persevere? Is it that some are
better, stronger, than others? No. The reason lies in the
difference between having saving faith and a faith that is not
divine in origin or nature. Many are those who make
professions not based upon regeneration, and the “faith” that is
theirs will not last. Jesus taught this truth in the parable of the
soils in Matthew 13:3-9, 18-23. Some of the seed that was
sown resulted in immediate growth. But the growth produced
no fruit and did not last. These are those who have false,
human faith that does not last. But those with true faith
produce fruit and remain.
Once this truth is understood, we can see it being mentioned
often in Scripture. Listen closely to how Peter refers to faith:
And on the basis of faith in His name, it is the name of
Jesus which has strengthened this man whom you see
and know; and the faith which comes through Him has
given him this perfect health in the presence of you
all. (Acts 3:16)
Faith comes through whom? Christ. That’s why Peter could
write years later:
who through Him are believers in God, who raised
Him from the dead and gave Him glory, so that your
faith and hope are in God. (1 Peter 1:21)
We are believers through Him, not through ourselves. Faith is
a gift, the universal possession of all believers. Just a few other
passages that testify to this truth:
And the grace of our Lord was more than abundant,
with the faith and love which are found in Christ
Jesus. (1 Timothy 1:14)
Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus
Christ, to those who have received a faith of the same
kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and
Savior, Jesus Christ: (2 Peter 1:1)
Indeed, repentance is likewise styled a gift in Scripture, and
given the intimate relationship between saving faith and
repentance, this further proves the Reformed position:
The Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but
be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged,
with gentleness correcting those who are in
opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance
leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may
 come to their senses and escape from the snare of the
devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.
(2 Timothy 2:24-26)
Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness
and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the
kindness of God leads you to repentance? (Romans
2:4)

Ephesians 2:8-9
Despite the richness of the testimony of Scripture seen
above, many focus almost solely upon the citation of
Ephesians 2:8-9 when it comes to the debate between
Arminians and Calvinists. And while the teaching of this verse
is important, it is surely not the main basis upon which the
truth of the divine nature of saving faith is to be based. The
blessed words are well known:
For by grace you have been saved through faith; and
that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a
result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are
His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good
works, which God prepared beforehand so that we
would walk in them. (Ephesians 2:8-10)
This passage cuts the ground out from underneath every and
all systems of works-salvation, any teaching that tells us that
our performances, our works, our efforts, are necessary to
bring salvation. And it is an empty cavil to say that Paul
speaks here only of the bare provision of the possibility of
salvation. He says his readers have been saved by grace
through faith, not “made savable.” They have already entered
into the state of salvation and continue therein. The means of
their salvation is said to be grace, free grace. They have been
saved through faith.
To this point all is agreed, at least on basic issues. The
debate begins with the next phrase, “and that not of
yourselves, it is the gift of God.” The basic issue is, “to what
does the word ‘that’ refer?” The Greek term is το το, the
neuter singular demonstrative pronoun. The basic rule of
thumb is to look for a singular neuter noun in the immediate
context as the antecedent of the pronoun. Yet, there are no
neuter singular nouns in the first phrase of Ephesians 2:8.
“Grace” is feminine singular; “have been saved” is a
masculine participle; “faith” is feminine singular. So to what
does το το refer?
The simple answer is: the entirety of the phrase “for by
grace you have been saved by faith.” It is good Greek
grammar to use a neuter pronoun to “wrap up” a phrase or a
series of thoughts into a single whole. Paul’s point is that the
entirety of the work of salvation does not find its basis in men
but in God: true salvation is the gift of God, not the work of
man. All of it is free, all of it is divine, not human.
So what of the claim that Ephesians 2:8 teaches that faith is
a gift of God? It is common for Arminians to triumphantly
point out that since “faith” is feminine and “that” is neuter, it
cannot be that faith is a gift. But this is only partially true. The
Arminian would have to admit that the grace mentioned in 2:8
is a gift: yet, it is feminine singular as well, which, if we
follow their reasoning, would mean that grace is not a gift
anymore than faith is. Such argumentation is too shallow to
allow a meaningful conclusion to be drawn.
There is no reason, contextual or grammatical, to accept the
fact that two of the three substantival2 elements (grace and
salvation) are a “gift,” while the third, faith, is a strictly human
contribution. Paul’s entire theology, including the fact that he
specifically refers to faith as something that is “granted” to us
(Philippians 1:29), would indicate that all three elements
together constitute a singular gift of God, for surely grace is
His to freely give; salvation is His to freely give, and likewise,
saving faith is the gift of God given to His elect.

A Sobering Thought
Half a century ago, J.I. Packer and O.R. Johnston wrote a
tremendous introduction to Martin Luther’s Bondage of the
Will. These words are even more vital today than they were
when they were penned:
These things need to be pondered by Protestants
today. With what right may we call ourselves children
of the Reformation? Much modern Protestantism
would be neither owned nor even recognized by the
pioneer Reformers. The Bondage of the Will fairly sets
before us what they believed about the salvation of
lost mankind. In the light of it, we are forced to ask
whether Protestant Christendom has not tragically sold
its birthright between Luther’s day and our own. Has
not Protestantism today become more Erasmian than
Lutheran?…Have we not grown used to an Erasmian
brand of teaching from our pulpits—a message that
rests on the same shallow synergistic conceptions
which Luther refuted, picturing God and man
approaching each other almost on equal terms, each
having his own contribution to make to man’s
salvation and each depending on the dutiful co-
operation of the other for the attainment of that end?—
as if God exists for man’s convenience, rather than
man for God’s glory? Is it not true, conversely, that it
is rare to-day to hear proclaimed the diagnosis of our
predicament which Luther—and Scripture—put
forward: that man is hopeless and helpless in sin, fast
bound in Satan’s slavery, at enmity with God, blind
and dead to the things of the Spirit? And hence, how
rarely do we hear faith spoken of as Scripture depicts
it—as it is expressed in the cry of self-committal with
which the contrite heart, humbled to see its need and
made conscious of its own utter helplessness even to
trust, casts itself in the God-given confidence of self-
despair upon the mercy of Christ Jesus—‘Lord, I
believe; help Thou my unbelief!’ Can we deny the
essential rightness of Luther’s exegesis of the texts?
And if not, dare we ignore the implication of his
exposition?3
And so we must now provide a biblically-based response to
the strong, at times strident denial of the sovereign work of
God in the regeneration of His elect found in CBF. This
doctrine is especially pernicious in the view of Dr. Geisler, as
is the idea that saving faith is a gift of God. But what do the
Scriptures say? Let’s see.
Notes
1 C.H. Spurgeon, “Salvation as it is Now Received”
Preached June 23, 1872, The C.H. Spurgeon Collection
(Ages Digital Library, 1998), 700.
2 Taking the participle σεσῴσµένοι in the sense of a
substantive referring to salvation as a whole.
3 Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will, translated by J.I.
Packer & O.R. Johnston, (Fleming H. Revel, 1957), pp.
59-60.
 Chapter 13

Irresistible Grace

It is our honest opinion that CBF shows the greatest dislike

and uses the strongest language in denying the Reformed
doctrine of irresistible grace than in any other area of its
presentation. The idea that God would sovereignly change a
sinner from a God-hater to a God-lover by the exercise of
divine power seems especially reprehensible to Dr. Geisler.
Given his stated view that he believes this to be an act of
“dehumanization,” we can certainly understand his feelings.
But feelings do not determine truth, and all Christians must
submit their feelings to the higher authority of Scripture. Dr.
Geisler consistently identifies the Reformed view as involving
coercion, force, or to use a term that appeared in one of his
earlier writings (but mercifully not in CBF), “divine rape.”1
Throughout CBF Dr. Geisler makes reference to the
“earlier” Augustine and the “later” Augustine and how on
these issues the “earlier” Augustine was more moderate while
the later Augustine wrote in support of a fully Calvinistic view
of predestination and regeneration. It is a measure of how CBF
views the Calvinistic position that the constant explanation
offered for Augustine’s change in view is not his growth and
maturity, nor the fact that he was forced to work through these
issues by his monumental battle with Pelagius. No, Augustine
did not mature with time and look more deeply at these things
(though that is what Augustine claimed in his Retractiones).
Instead, Augustine’s actions with reference to the Donatist
controversy, wherein he acquiesced to the use of physical force
so as to suppress “heresy,” are made the sole basis of the
change in his thinking. Geisler writes:
Since Augustine came to believe that heretics could
be coerced to believe against their free choice, he saw
 no problem in God doing the same for the elect.2

Our concern here is not to debate Augustine3 nor his views,

but rather to document the strident claims made by CBF
regarding this doctrine. The act of sovereignly freeing the elect
from the shackles of sin, raising them to spiritual life, giving
them a new nature, and suppressing the madness of rebellion
in their heart (for which the elect express eternal gratitude) is
likened to the forceful suppression of the Donatists in North
Africa. But this is not the full extent of the expression of
dislike of this doctrine in CBF:
But since God only gives the desire to some (not all),
this leads to another problem.
Second, “irresistible grace” on the unwilling is a
violation of free choice. For God is love (1 John 4:16),
and true love is persuasive but never coercive. There
can be no shotgun weddings in heaven. God is not a
cosmic B.F. Skinner who behaviorally modifies men
against their will.4
For God to be truly loving He must in essence become one of
the pots. All of the objections voiced by Dr. Geisler are based
upon the idea that God interacts with man on the same level as
a man would interact with a prospective wife. The utter
sovereignty of God in His dealings with men has no place in
this system of thought. We would ask the proponent of this
form of “moderate Calvinism” if the following passages make
God 1) a Sovereign free to do with His creation as He will, or
2) a cosmic B.F. Skinner:
He turned their heart to hate His people,
To deal craftily with His servants.
(Psalm 105:25)
For it was of the LORD to harden their hearts, to meet
Israel in battle in order that he might utterly destroy
them, that they might receive no mercy, but that he
might destroy them, just as the LORD had commanded
Moses.
 (Joshua 11:20)
Why, O LORD, do You cause us to stray from Your
ways And harden our heart from fearing You? Return
for the sake of Your servants, the tribes of Your
heritage.
(Isaiah 63:17)
I will make an everlasting covenant with them that I
will not turn away from them, to do them good; and I
will put the fear of Me in their hearts so that they will
not turn away from Me. (Jeremiah 32:40)
We need to realize that God is the Potter, we the pots. Much of
the presentation in CBF places God on the level of man in
regards to His relationship to us. The illustrations of a man
wooing a potential mate, a doctor performing an operation on
someone (see below), etc., all miss the fundamental Christian
assertion that God is God and man is a creature. The Potter has
the right to make the pots for whatever purposes He sees fit.
Human analogies that do not properly reflect the
Creator/creation distinction only blur, not clarify, biblical
truth.
Arminians teach that God sends his grace to “persuade”
men to believe, but they deny that God can actually raise a
man to spiritual life without his assistance and agreement.
They deny that there is an elect people, based solely on the
choice of God, to whom God will infallibly apply the benefits
of Christ’s atonement. Grace is limited to being effective on
the “willing,” i.e., it is submitted to the power and will of man
and his decisions. It becomes a mere “wooing” force. The
Reformed Christian who has sought to share the gospel of
grace with Roman Catholics recognizes that this is the same
view of grace found in the Roman communion, and it is
deeply troubling to find it expressed within what is called
Protestantism. Note the words of CBF:
Further, moderate Calvinists do not deny that God’s
grace works on the unregenerate to move them to
faith. It only denies that any such work is irresistible
 on the unwilling, or that God gives faith only to the
elect, without which no one can be saved.5
Given that there is no such thing as a God-seeker, none who
understands, and none who can do what is pleasing to God
(i.e., all are unwilling until changed by grace), this view of
grace as a force that “moves” only the willing to faith (but
does not actually impart faith) is simply unbiblical, despite its
great popularity today.
In objecting to the sovereign work of God in regenerating
His people, CBF raises the serious objection that the Reformed
position denies the omnibenevolence of God. The Calvinist’s
God is unloving, we are told by many an advocate of
Arminianism. But is this so?

The Issue of Omnibenevolence

All through this section of CBF the same objection is raised:
God could not “force” someone (i.e., resurrect someone
without asking their permission) into the kingdom of God
without violating His loving nature. Note these words:
But if God’s grace can be resisted, then it is not
irresistible. Irresistible force used by God on His free
creatures would be a violation of both the charity of
God and the dignity of man. God is love. And true
love never forces itself on anyone, either externally or
internally. “Forced love” is a contradiction in terms.6
“Forced love” for the Arminian is resurrection life for the
Calvinist. Lazarus was glad Jesus “forced” His love upon him,
and we are eternally thankful that He raised us from spiritual
death as well. But Dr. Geisler, using this imbalanced and
unfair caricaturization of God “forcing” unwilling men into the
kingdom, raises a more serious objection:
In fact, if God is one indivisible being without any
parts, as classical Calvinists believe, then His love
extends to all of His essence, not just part of it. Hence,
God cannot be partly loving. But if God is all-loving,
 then how can He love only some so as to give them
and only them the desire to be saved? If He really
loves all men, then why does He not give to all men
the desire to be saved? It only follows that, in the final
analysis, the reason why some go to hell is that God
does not love them and give them the desire to be
saved. But if the real reason they go to hell is that God
does not love them, irresistibly regenerate them, and
give them the faith to believe, then their failure to
believe truly would result from God’s lack of love for
them.7
The final sentences should be reread. Here is CBF’s summary
of the Reformed position. Men go to hell because God did not
love them and save them. It is God’s fault for not being loving
enough, if, in fact, the Calvinists are right about predestination
and election.
What can be said in response to this? The single most
fundamental rebuttal of this erroneous argument is simply this:
Arminians should well consider why they demand that God
have less freedom in His actions and His love than they grant
to the creature man. As we will see immediately below, the
key problem with Geisler’s attack is that it demands that God’s
love be indiscriminate. While man has the freedom to love
those closest to him with a particular love that is not given to
anyone else, God is not granted this freedom. If He is to be
“all loving” then His love is to have no distinctions, no
freedom, no particularity. Love all the same or love none at all
is the argument.
Second, it is pure misrepresentation to say that Calvinists
believe men are sent to hell simply because God did not love
them. Men are sent to hell out of pure, holy, and unfettered
justice that demands the punishment of their vile sins. God is
under no compulsion or obligation to show mercy, grace, or
redeeming love to any person, let alone the myriads to whom
He has shown Himself gracious. And, hell exists, and men will
be punished therein, to demonstrate both His perfect justice as
well as the glory of His grace upon those that He freely chose
to bring to Himself. There is a single five-letter word that will
separate the vilest sinner screaming epithets at God from the
parapet of hell and the most adoring saint in heaven showering
Him with praises: G R A C E. Nothing else.
So convinced is Dr. Geisler that the Reformed viewpoint is
susceptible to criticism at this point that he devotes an entire
section to the following accusation:
The Extreme Calvinists’ God is Not Really All-
Loving8
For God to be all loving, He could not possibly have the
freedom to save some but not all. It should be remembered
that in Geisler’s view, God wants to save every single person,
but is incapable of doing so. He loves every single individual
equally, but, despite this love and all that He has done to save
every person, millions perish. One could easily argue that a
God that would create a universe well knowing that in the final
outcome millions of the objects of His love would end up in
eternal punishment and all His best efforts would be frustrated
would not be considered a very wise or, in fact, a very loving
God. Why create, and set His love upon, creatures that He
knows, infallibly, will destroy themselves in rebellion and will
thwart His every effort to save them? This issue aside, we
return to the argument:
In fact, God is not really loving at all toward them
with regard to their salvation. If He were, then they
would be part of the elect, for according to extreme
Calvinists, whomever God really wants to be saved
will be saved. R.C. Sproul’s response to “the
problem,” though, is a bit shocking. He argues that to
say God should have so loved the world, as He did the
elect, is to assume that “God is obligated to be
gracious to sinners . . . God may owe people justice,
but never mercy.”
But how can this be? Both justice and mercy (or
love) are attributes of an unchangeable and infinite
God. God by His very nature manifests to all His
creatures what flows from all His attributes. So,
whereas there is nothing in the sinner to merit God’s
 love, nonetheless, there is something in God that
prompts Him to love all sinners, namely, God is all-
loving (omnibenevolent). Hence, extreme Calvinism is
in practice a denial of the omnibenevolence of God.9
Here we touch upon the heart of the error inherent in this
argument (we will see an expansion of this in the “parable”
discussed below). The definition of omnibenevolence is both
untenable and unbiblical. The definition offered demands that
God’s love be 1) equally distributed to all men without any
reference to their actions or behavior; 2) be of the same kind to
all men (i.e., God cannot choose to show redemptive love to
one and not another). There cannot be any choice in God’s
love. If He loves one, He must love all, equally, in the same
fashion.
But let us point out that such a definition is untenable. Let’s
replace the word “love” with the word “grace.” Is God all
gracious? By the same definition given above, God would
have to show equal grace to every single individual in the
world. Hence, either all would be saved, or, all would be lost,
but in any case, all would receive the exact same “amount” or
“kind” of grace. God could not say “I will have mercy on
whom I have mercy” if this definition is true, since it demands
that all receive equal love, equal grace, equal mercy, equal
justice, etc. But such removes from God an attribute that Dr.
Geisler zealously demands be given to man: freedom of
choice. CBF denies to the Potter what it gives to the pots.
God created us with the ability to love. We love those who
are closest to us with a special, discriminating love. A mother
loves her children with a love utterly unlike that she might
have for a cousin, or a co-worker. The love of husband and
wife is likewise of a totally different kind than the love that
exists between a sister and a brother, or that between very
close friends. We exercise choice in our love relationships,
knowing how costly true love is, and how precious it is. Even
the Lord Jesus had special relationships amongst the disciples.
The Scripture speaks of the “disciple Jesus loved” (John 20:2).
This shows His freedom to have a closer relationship with one
than with the others.
 But what is common to humans seemingly is denied to God.
While someone might argue that in humans the ability, or
desire, to discriminate and choose in the matter of love is a
result of sin, it surely cannot be said that the Lord Jesus, in
loving the Apostle John with a special love, was somehow in
error or suffering from the taint of sin. How then can CBF
make the claim that unless God loves each and every
individual with redeeming love that He cannot love any at all?
This is tantamount to claiming God cannot have grace upon
whom He chooses to have grace: that there is no freedom in
God to have mercy on whom He has mercy, let alone to harden
whom He would harden (Romans 9:18).
At this point Dr. Geisler reproduces a “parable” that he feels
illustrates how the Reformed view of God’s freedom and love
is in fact not “omnibenevolent.” Here’s the illustration as it
appears in CBF:
Suppose a farmer discovers three boys drowning in
his pond where he had placed signs clearly forbidding
swimming. Further, nothing their blatant disobedience
he says to himself, “They have violated the warning
and have broken the law, and they have brought these
deserved consequences on themselves.” Thus far he is
manifesting his sense of justice. But if the farmer
proceeds to say, “I will make no attempt to rescue
them,” we would immediately perceive that something
is lacking in his love And suppose by some
inexplicable whim he should declare: “Even though
the boys are drowning as a consequence of their own
disobedience, nonetheless, out of the goodness of my
heart I will save one of them and let the other two
drown.” In such a case we would surely consider his
love to be partial and imperfect.10
The reason we note that this is the form it took in CBF is that
Dr. Geisler used this exact parable in the 1985 Basinger &
Basinger work on predestination and free will,11 with one
interesting difference: in the 1985 edition the final assertion
that the love of the farmer (here meant to represent the
Calvinist’s God) is “imperfect” is not included. Why is any of
this relevant?
Two years after Dr. Geisler’s essay appeared in the Basinger
& Basinger work, C. Samuel Storms wrote Chosen for Life:
An Introductory Guide to the Doctrine of Divine Election. In it
he provided a devastating critique of the parable of the farmer.
The critique extends for six pages and provides the careful
reader with a multitude of reasons to reject the parable as
having any merit whatsoever. CBF does not contain a single
citation of or reference to Storms’ work. Obviously, it is
possible Dr. Geisler never saw this work, even though it was
published by Baker (a major Christian publisher). But such
seems unlikely. My response to this parable will follow the
outline of Storms and draw heavily from his insights.
The major problem with this parable is not what it does say
but what it doesn’t say. It is the entire blocks of truth that are
ignored that allows one to conclude that the loving God who
redeems an unworthy people is in fact less than all loving.
There are all sorts of hidden assumptions that lead to the
completely erroneous conclusion presented in CBF.
Consider especially the fact that the parable uses a mere
creature (the farmer) to represent the holy God. Immediately,
as we consider the example of the farmer, we do so on a
human plane. The farmer would have limited knowledge;
would be sinful himself and in need of mercy; and may
himself have jumped into some other farmer’s pond when he
was but a kid. We expect certain things of human beings that
we have no right to expect of the infinite, holy, almighty God.
All these things enter into an evaluation of the attitudes of God
based upon how we feel about a fellow human being (the
farmer). Storms notes,
Related to this is the tendency to think that if he
really wanted to, it would not affect the farmer in the
least simply to take down the sign, suspend the
punishment, and turn his pond into a swimming hole
for everyone to enjoy. But again, God’s retributive
justice is not like an old hat that he can discard if he so
 chooses. Retributive justice is as much a part of God’s
nature as love is.12
To make the parable even semi-workable one would have to
change the farmer into the greatest and most noble king and
ruler of all time. Then, at least, there would be some
meaningful comparison, though still very limited.
Along with what Storms calls a “straw God” the parable
likewise trivializes sin. Can anyone seriously think that some
“good ol’ boys” swimming in a pond is to be likened to the
depth of the depraved heart of mankind? If the parable wished
to be serious the sin would have to be made realistic: the great
king returns to his castle from doing good amongst the people
of the land to find a group of men robbing, raping, and
murdering his family and friends. They have intentionally set
fire to the castle and, if they do not quickly escape, they will
perish in the flames. At least this would capture a little more of
the seriousness of sin and the horrific nature of it. But let’s add
something more: these are subjects of the great king who have
benefited greatly at his hand. He has provided them with great
material blessings in the past. They have sat at his table and
enjoyed his hospitality. And yet they treat him in this fashion.
Unlike the parable, these rebels have sinned against the king
(in the parable they sin against a “No Swimming” sign)
personally. And, it should be noted that this is not the first
time. They have a long track record of rebellion, and they have
often found mercy at the hand of the king.
But let’s move even further. These “good ol’ boys” are not
even described in Geisler’s parable. We are told nothing about
them other than the fact that they are drowning. To again insert
some level of biblical truth, we would have to be informed that
these men who are found by the king engaging in heinous
crimes against his very own family in the king’s castle are not
crying out for deliverance from their activities. Despite the
mounting flames and heat they continue in their violent
behavior, destroying everything that reminds them of the king
and his rule. They are enjoying themselves immensely. They
love their rebellion and their sin. They even make excuses for
it and, in fact, get mad at anyone who would call their
activities sinful! Indeed, they so enjoy their activities that they
encourage others to join them in their attack upon the king!
But the truth is even further removed from the offered
parable. If we ask “how do these rebels respond to the attempt
to deliver them from their rebellion?” there is only one answer:
they mock the king’s attempts. Should he seek to open a way
for them through the flames so as to save them, they would
each, invariably, laugh at him and mock his actions. They
would throw debris in his face and run away into the smoke,
cursing his name. Indeed, if they had the power, they would
pull the king into the burning building and make sure he
perished in the flames, laughing with glee the entire time!
They would surely never cry out for deliverance or seek
escape from the danger that surrounds them. This is part of the
error brought into the parable by Geisler’s insistence that the
unregenerate man can do what is pleasing to God, in direct
contradiction to Romans 8:7-8. No rebel sinner (outside of the
grace of God bringing them spiritual life) is crying out for
help. Even if the proverbial “life ring” were cast into the pond,
or a squad of firemen made it to the rebels in the smoke, they
would not cooperate with the rescue effort, and even at this,
we are missing an important element of biblical truth: they
lack the capacity (due to spiritual death) to take advantage of
any kind of “assistance” even if they desired to do so! On
every level, the parable fails to correspond to the reality of
biblical teaching.
But there is more. The parable contains an implicit swipe at
the sovereign will of God in election. Storms rightly protests:
When the farmer is finally portrayed as seeking their
deliverance, he does so on an “inexplicable whim.” A
“whim”? This sort of needless caricature portrays
God’s solemn, most blessed, and altogether gracious
determination to save as little more than a bothersome
afterthought, with no purpose or design. What the
author of this illustration calls a “whim” the Word of
God calls “the kind intention of His will” (Eph.
1:5b).13
The conclusion of Geisler’s parable is the assertion that such a
“God” as the farmer has a “partial and imperfect” kind of love.
To be truly loving, it seems, the king would not have the
freedom to show mercy to some of the rebels: he would have
to show equal mercy to all the rebels. If he is all-loving, the
king would have to offer pardon, on equal basis, to all the
rebels who were busy joyously trashing his castle and killing
his family. But, in reality, there is more, much more. For how
can the king provide forgiveness for these rebels anyway? The
law must be satisfied. He must send his one and only son to
pay the price of their sin. Going back to the pond illustration,
Storms lays it out clearly:
Divine, biblical love, on the other hand, entails that
the farmer casts his own son into the pond, knowing
full well that if his son makes an effort to save the
boys he will die. The son swims to the three boys,
notwithstanding their vehement and hostile cries that
he get out of the water and leave them alone. As he
reaches the three, he extends his arms in love to but
one of them. Though that one boy is vile and
reprehensible in every respect, the son of the farmer
brings him back safely to shore, but in doing so he
himself drowns. The two remaining boys laugh and
mock that the farmer’s son has drowned. Their glee is
beyond control. The one boy for whom the son gave
his life to save is suddenly brought to tears as he
senses the magnitude of the love that has been shown
him, while he was yet hateful and full of blasphemy.
The farmer lifts the boy up, dries him off, cleans the
mud and filth from his body, and clothes him in the
garments of his own dear son. They embrace in
everlasting love. The young boy falls to his knees in
gratitude, tears flowing. The two who remain in the
water continue hurling their taunts at the farmer,
declaring that even if they could start anew, they
would dive defiantly into the middle of the pond
without a moment’s hesitation.14
So what are we to make of Dr. Geisler’s assertion that a God
who saves some rebel sinners (but not all) through the miracle
of divine grace, freeing them from the shackles of sin, giving
them a new heart and a new nature, despite their hatred of Him
and His ways, is a denial of omnibenevolence? Once all the
false assumptions are stripped away we can all see the error of
the presentation. It is based upon a false view of God’s
holiness, a false view of His freedom, a false view of the
sinfulness and capacities of man, and a complete
misunderstanding of the freedom of God to show mercy as He
wills not as we demand. The king would have a perfect right to
ring the burning castle with his best troops to make sure the
rebels cannot escape, and stand there in perfect majesty and let
the flames consume his enemies. It is love beyond degree if
the king sends his only son into the burning structure to save
any of the rebels. There is no logical or rational argument that
can be mustered to say that the king must send his son to save
every single one of the rebels or else be “imperfect” in his
love. What CBF calls “imperfection” the Bible says is merely
God’s freedom to show grace to whom He will show grace,
and justice to whom He will show justice. “Omnibenevolence”
does not mean God’s grace becomes something that can be
demanded by all. Grace, to be grace, must be free and freely
given. If one is going to argue that God must have the very
same kind of love for every rebel sinner to have love for any,
then it would of necessity follow that God must either save all,
or save none. To avoid these two conclusions, evangelicals,
including Dr. Geisler, are willing to say that God tries to save
as many as He can, but fails to do so in many instances, due to
the lack of cooperation by the creature.

Redefinition of Terms
Despite CBF’s strong dislike of irresistible grace, the work
attempts to redefine the phrase so that the “moderate
Calvinist” moniker can be maintained. To do this it is said that
“Thus, grace is only irresistible to the willing, not to the
unwilling.”15 Of course, if someone is “willing” the term
“irresistible” no longer has meaning. Why even combine these
terms in a meaningless fashion such as this? The Reformed
say this grace is irresistible because man is dead in sin and
God is the sovereign Creator: the Arminian says man is alive
and able to put up a fight and God’s grace cannot change him
without his assistance. How is this conflict of beliefs aided by
redefining the term irresistible and stripping it of all
theological meaning? Geisler is saying God’s grace is
dependent upon free will just as the Arminian is. Why not just
admit this and move on? Instead, this meaningless statement
becomes an interpretive device used to overthrow any biblical
evidence to the contrary. For example, even when faced with
the overwhelming statement of Romans 9:21, “Or does not the
potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump
one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?” he
writes,
Irresistible grace operates the way falling in love
does. If one willingly responds to the love of another,
eventually they reach a point where that love is
overwhelming. But that is the way they willed it to be.
Even if Paul agreed with the objector that God’s work
is irresistible, it would not support the hard line of
extreme Calvinism, since God uses irresistible saving
grace only on the willing, not the unwilling.
We have seen no substantiation of this theological maxim
outside of mere assertion, yet, it enters into the very
interpretation of the passage and becomes the determining
factor in how it is to be understood! He goes on,
Finally, even if one could show that God is working
here (1) irresistibly, (2) on individuals, (3) for eternal
salvation—all of which are doubtful—it would not
follow necessarily that He works irresistibly on the
unwilling. Indeed, as we have seen, God does not
force free creatures to love Him. Forced love is both
morally and logically absurd.16
In reality our exegesis of Romans 9 showed that Paul is
speaking of God’s utter freedom to sovereignly choose
individuals for eternal salvation, all to his glory. None of this
is doubtful (CBF surely gave us no substantial counter-
exegesis). But despite working with a text that shouts the
freedom of God and the creatureliness of man, the
commentary concludes with yet another assertion of the
existence of “free creatures” and their abilities.

Smoke and Mirrors?

Under the banner “Grace is Irresistible Only on the Willing”
(i.e., “God Cannot Save Anyone Without Man’s Help”) we
read the following:
Some extreme Calvinists use a kind of smoke-and-
mirror tactic to avoid the harsh implications of their
view. They claim that God does no violence toward a
rebellious will; He simply gives a new one. In R.C.
Sproul’s words, “If God gives us a desire for Christ we
will act according to that desire.” This sounds
reasonable enough until the implied words are
included: “If God gives us a[n irresistible] desire for
Christ we will [irresistibly] act according to that
desire.” Now it can be seen that extreme Calvinists are
using word magic in an attempt to hide the fact that
they believe God forces the unwilling against their
will.17
One thing we do not do is hide our beliefs, and given that Dr.
Geisler is in this very section talking about “irresistible grace
on the willing,” we suggest that making allegations of “word
magic” might not be overly wise. But one thing is for certain:
Calvinists believe God changes the heart of the dead sinner by
grace and changes him from being a God-hater into a God-
lover. Is this not what the Bible says? Do we not read of God
taking out the heart of stone and giving us a heart of flesh
(Ezek 36:26)? What is this if not a complete change of the
individual? More “word magic” takes place when we are told
that God “forces the unwilling” when the accurate statement is
that God renews the heart and the mind. By using unfair words
and ignoring the continuity of the biblical doctrines of the
sovereignty of God and the deadness of man in sin, CBF
produces a tremendously unfair and inaccurate critique that
quickly breaks down into simply mockery:
 What extreme Calvinists want to do is to avoid the
repugnant image of a reluctant candidate being forced
into the fold or captured into the kingdom.…But no
matter how well the act of “irresistible grace” is
hidden by euphemistic language, it is still a morally
repugnant concept.
The problem with the idea of “irresistible grace” in
extreme Calvinism, according to this analogy, is that
there is no informed consent for the treatment. Or,
better yet, the patients are dragged kicking and
screaming into the operating room, but once they are
given a head transplant, they (not surprisingly) feel
like an entirely different person!18
What CBF calls a “head transplant” the Bible calls a “new
creature.” We are thankful, so very thankful, that God has the
freedom, and the will, to change the hearts of sinners, not as
they “enable Him” but as He freely wills. We are thankful that
God did powerfully subdue the insane rebellion that filled our
hearts and caused us to live as if He and His law did not matter
a bit. We are thankful He inscribed His law upon our hearts
and gave us a love for Christ, for without all of this gracious
work on our behalf, we would be lost and undone. There is a
vast difference between free grace and grace that is dependent
upon man for its power. We are thankful God’s grace is not
fettered by man’s actions, will, or desires.

Is Faith a Gift?
It is an intramural debate among those opposed to
extreme Calvinism whether faith is a gift or not. The
Bible is seriously lacking in any verses demonstrating
that faith is a gift. But if it is a gift, then it is one
offered to all and can be freely accepted or rejected.19
Along with his attack upon irresistible grace comes not only
an in-text denial of the gift of divine faith, but an entire
appendix as well. We are told that the Bible is “seriously
lacking” in “any” verses demonstrating that faith is a gift. Yet,
it takes an entire appendix to respond to at least some of them,
and a number we have already presented are completely
ignored by CBF.

John 3:3, 6-7

We made mention of the Lord Jesus’ teaching on the new
birth in John 3. CBF addresses this as well:
The dispute is over whether this comes by an act of
God apart from the recipient’s free choice. On this
point the text both here and elsewhere indicates that
this new birth comes through an act of faith on the part
of the recipient. According to this very passage, it is
“whoever believes” that gets eternal life (John 3:16).
And in 1 John 5:4 it is “everyone born of God
overcomes the world This is the victory that has
overcome the world, even our faith.” Although
prompted—not coerced—by grace, the act of faith is
an act of the believer, not a gift from God only to the
elect.20
None of this touches upon whether regeneration precedes faith
or whether faith is a gift of God. The phrase “free choice” is
such a mantra for the Arminian that it appears over and over
again, even when the phrase nowhere appears in the texts
being examined! But most importantly the reader should fully
understand the assertion that in the above quotation grace is
limited to prompting. By using the term “coerce” to cover over
the beautiful act of regeneration the reader is kept from fully
weighing the two sides fairly. Nothing in the text leads to the
conclusion that faith is not a gift given by God to His elect
people. This is simply a reiteration of what must be if CBF’s
central affirmation—the freedom of the will of unregenerate
men—is to be maintained. And we are not engaging in any
kind of adhominem argumentation to point out something else:
this is Rome’s view of grace, not Geneva’s. That is, Rome
likewise limits grace to a prompting, aiding force which can,
and often does, fail to accomplish its goal. This is what
divided the pioneer Reformers from the Roman Catholics. On
this issue, as we have already noted, CBF is firmly planted on
the other side of the Tiber River from the Protestant
Reformation.

Ephesians 2:8-9
Regarding faith being a gift at Ephesians 2:8-9, CBF notes,
Zealous defender of extreme Calvinism R.C. Sproul
is so confident that this is what the text means that he
triumphantly concludes: “This passage should seal the
matter forever. The faith by which we are saved is a
gift of God. But even John Calvin said of this text that
“he does not mean that faith is the gift of God, but that
salvation is given to us by God, or, that we obtain it by
the gift of God.”21
Did John Calvin agree with Norman Geisler’s assertions here?
The short citation provided might give that idea, but it would
be a mistake to think so. Here is the full context, by which a
person can judge for themselves how Calvin interpreted the
passage:
Ought we not then to be silent about free-will, and
good intentions, and fancied preparations, and merits,
and satisfactions? There is none of these which does
not claim a share of praise in the salvation of men; so
that the praise of grace would not, as Paul shews,
remain undiminished. When, on the part of man, the
act of receiving salvation is made to consist in faith
alone, all other means, on which men are accustomed
to rely, are discarded. Faith, then, brings a man empty
to God, that he may be filled with the blessings of
Christ. And so he adds, not of yourselves; that
claiming nothing for themselves, they may
acknowledge God alone as the author of their
salvation.… This passage affords an easy refutation of
the idle cavil by which Papists attempt to evade the
argument, that we are justified without works. Paul,
they tell us, is speaking about ceremonies. But the
 present question is not confined to one class of works.
Nothing can be more clear than this. The whole
righteousness of man, which consists in works, — nay,
the whole man, and everything that he can call his
own, is set aside. We must attend to the contrast
between God and Man, between grace and works.
Why should God be contrasted with man, if the
controversy related to nothing more than ceremonies?
Papists themselves are compelled to own that Paul
ascribes to the grace of God the whole glory of our
salvation, but endeavor to do away with this admission
by another contrivance. This mode of expression, they
tell us, is employed, because God bestows the first
grace. It is really foolish to imagine that they can
succeed in this way, since Paul excludes man and his
utmost ability,—not only from the commencement,
but throughout,—from the whole work of obtaining
salvation.
But it is still more absurd to overlook the apostle’s
inference, lest any man should boast. Some room must
always remain for man’s boasting, so long as,
independently of grace, merits are of any avail. Paul’s
doctrine is overthrown, unless the whole praise is
rendered to God alone and to his mercy. And here we
must advert to a very common error in the
interpretation of this passage. Many persons restrict
the word gift to faith alone. But Paul is only repeating
in other words the former sentiment. His meaning is,
not that faith is the gift of God, but that salvation is
given to us by God, or, that we obtain it by the gift of
God.22
As the reader can see, if just the preceding two sentences had
been quoted, the real meaning would be seen. Specifically,
Calvin is refuting those who say that the term “gift” is to be
restricted to faith alone. This is not the Reformed view, as was
seen in the previous chapter. To cite Calvin as if he would
agree with the denial that faith is a gift in this passage is to
completely misrepresent these words of the Genevan
Reformer. Instead, make special note of two of the phrases
provided by Calvin in response to Rome’s claims: “nay, the
whole man, and everything that he can call his own, is set
aside. We must attend to the contrast between God and Man,
between grace and works;” and “since Paul excludes man and
his utmost ability, — not only from the commencement, but
throughout, — from the whole work of obtaining salvation.”
We suggest that the person who honestly wishes to know
where Calvin would stand on the debate today would find
these to be the key affirmations, for if Geisler’s position is
correct, and “anyone can believe,” then Calvin’s entire
position is overthrown. Would not such a faith be something
the man could “call his own”? Calvin says it is set aside.
Would this not be part of man’s “utmost ability” especially at
the very “commencement” of salvation”? Paul excludes it
from the whole work of obtaining salvation, Calvin teaches.
There is, in fact, very little in “moderate Calvinism” that
Calvin would ever call his own.23

Philippians 1:29
We presented this passage in the previous chapter as clear
evidence of the nature of faith as a gift from God. CBF
attempts to argue otherwise:
There are several indications here that Paul had no
such thing in mind. First, the point is simply that God
has not only provided us with the opportunity to trust
Him but also to suffer for Him. The word “granted”
(Greek: echaristhe) means “grace” or “favor.” That is,
both the opportunity to suffer for Him and to believe
on Him are favors with which God has graced us.24
We must again object to the retranslation of the passage
without the slightest foundation being provided. How does
“granted to you to believe in Him” become “granted to you the
opportunity to believe in Him”? And are we really to believe
that Paul was teaching the Philippians that God had granted
them the opportunity to suffer? Such is pure eisegesis. “To
believe” and “to suffer” are perfectly parallel in the passage: if
the one is a matter of a mere opportunity to believe based upon
our own free will actions, does it not follow that the suffering
is likewise to be viewed as something we can choose, or not
choose, to endure? No, the “simple meaning” of the passage is
that God has granted faith to his elect people and that those
people well know the path to glory: it is the path of suffering,
trod by their Savior.
Further, Paul is not speaking here of initial faith that
brings salvation but of the daily faith and daily
suffering of someone who is already Christian.
We are not told how Dr. Geisler proves this from the text, but
again, if this is so, it means that unregenerate men can exercise
saving faith that brings forgiveness of sins without receiving
this faith as a gift from God, but, the regenerate man for some
reason is not as capable of producing daily faith! Are we to
believe that the faith that accepts the promises of Christ unto
salvation is somehow “easier” than the faith the Christian
needs for every day living? Surely not!
Finally, it is noteworthy that both the suffering and
the believing are presented as things that we are to do.
He says it is granted for “you” to do this. It was not
something God did for them. Both were simply an
opportunity God gave them to use “on the behalf of
Christ” by their free choice.
Here in three sentences we have both straw-man
argumentation and eisegesis. First, the Reformed does not
argue that we do not exercise faith. Instead, it is argued that we
are not capable of exercising saving faith until enabled by God
(John 6:65). That ability is a gift from God given to His elect
as part of the work of regeneration. So, to say “It was not
something God did for them” is to completely misrepresent the
debate. Finally, while the text says God granted them “to
believe” and “to suffer,” CBF must change this to “the
opportunity to exercise your free will in faith” and “to choose
to suffer.”
1 Corinthians 12:8-9
For to one is given the word of wisdom through the
Spirit, and to another the word of knowledge
according to the same Spirit; to another faith by the
same Spirit, and to another gifts of healing by the one
Spirit, (1 Corinthians 12:8-9)
This passage plainly says that faith is a gift given by the Spirit.
How does CBF respond?
To be sure, faith is referred to here as a gift from
God. However, Paul is not talking about faith given to
unbelievers by which they can be saved. Rather, it is
speaking of a special gift of faith given to some
believers by which they can serve. One can plainly see
the difference by looking at the context.25
We have only one question to ask in response: if the
unregenerate, spiritually dead, slave-to-sin natural man outside
of Christ is capable of saving faith, why would a regenerate,
born again, freed-from-sin spiritual man in Christ need a gift of
faith?

Acts 5:31
He is the one whom God exalted to His right hand as a
Prince and a Savior, to grant repentance to Israel, and
forgiveness of sins. (Acts 5:31)
This passage is cited as evidence that God “grants” repentance
on the basis of the work of Christ. CBF responds:
If this is so, then all Israel must have been saved,
since both were given “to Israel.”26
This is obviously untrue. The point of the passage is not the
definition or extent of the term “Israel,” but the fact that
repentance and forgiveness are both gifts (over against the
Arminian contention that repentance is something
unregenerate man is able to do on his own). What is not
addressed is the obvious question: why would Christ have to
grant what is, in the Arminian view, an inherent ability that all
men already have? The response continues:
This clearly does not mean that all Gentiles will be
saved but that all have the opportunity to be saved.
Likewise, it means that all have the God-given
opportunity to repent (cf. 2 Peter 3:9)
Second, the opportunity to repent is a gift of God. He
graciously allows us the opportunity to turn from our
sins, but we must do the repenting. God is not going to
repent for us. Repentance is an act of our will
supported and encouraged by His grace.
Where did the term “opportunity” come from in the text of
Acts 5:31? It does not appear. So upon what exegetical basis
are we to determine that “grant repentance” actually means
“grant opportunities for repentance”? What is granted in the
text? Repentance itself. Since Dr. Geisler chides Reformed
writers for allegedly changing Scripture when they paraphrase
something, why does he here provide a paraphrase that
actually changes the meaning of the text?
Next, if Jesus merely grants the opportunity to repent, may
we ask why He does not grant this to every single individual?
Indeed, it cannot be said that every single Jew who has ever
lived has heard the gospel, hence, even if we take the passage
in this a-contextual manner, it leaves us with a contradiction,
for it then pictures the exalted Christ granting “opportunities”
of repentance to only some.
Next, no one is arguing that God repents for us. This is
straw-man argumentation. The question is, can the
unregenerate man who is still in the flesh repent so as to please
God? Paul said no (Romans 8:7-8). So does this passage not
refer to the ability to repent as “repentance”? Surely it does.
So, Acts 5:31 teaches us that since Christ is now exalted He,
graciously, grants repentance and forgiveness of sins. Both are
divine gifts for which we must be eternally grateful. Geisler
concludes,
 Further, if repentance is a gift, then it is a gift in the
same sense that forgiveness is a gift. But forgiveness
was obtained by Jesus on the Cross for “everyone who
believes” (Acts 13:38-39), not just for the elect.
Hence, by the same logic, all men must have been
given saving faith—a conclusion emphatically
rejected by extreme Calvinists.
We have seen how the biblical doctrines of God’s sovereignty,
man’s deadness in sin, God’s unconditional election, etc., all
stand together. We can likewise see how the strong
commitment to the free will of man on the part of CBF
determines every interpretation of every verse that is raised
against the idea. We have seen in the words of Jesus that all
who are given to Him by the Father will come to Him in faith
(John 6:37). Hence, “everyone who believes” is a phrase that
must consistently be seen as coextensive with the elect. But
none of this is even slightly relevant to what would have to be
shown to deflect this passage: that repentance (not the mere
opportunity) is not a gift given by the exalted Christ.

Acts 16:14
What of the Lord’s opening of Lydia’s heart to respond to
the things spoken by the Apostles in Acts 16:14?
Moderate Calvinists do not deny that God moves
upon the hearts of unbelievers to persuade and prompt
them to exercise faith in Christ. They only deny that
God does this coercively by irresistible grace and that
He only does it on some persons (the elect). The Holy
Spirit is convicting “the world [all men, not just some;
cf. John 3:16-18; 1 John 2:15-17] of sin, righteousness
and judgment” (John 16:8). And God does not force
anyone to believe in Him (Matt. 23:37).27
First, where does the text speak of “moving upon the hearts of
unbelievers to persuade and prompt them to exercise faith in
Christ”? The text says the Lord opened the heart of Lydia “to
respond to” the gospel message. There is nothing about
persuading or prompting here (i.e., no exegetical response is
offered). Secondly, if this opening of the heart was not done on
specific persons (Lydia), why, then, were not all who heard
converted? Was Lydia “better” or more “spiritual” than the
others? Why did the Holy Spirit succeed in persuading her, but
not everyone else? Next, upon what basis does Dr. Geisler
confuse conviction of the entire world with regeneration of the
elect? Are the two the same thing? Surely not. It is the
Reformed contention that the Holy Spirit regenerates the elect
at the very time the Father has decreed. That surely involves
conviction of sin, but it is not limited to it. Finally, we have
seen the misuse of Matthew 23:37 with tremendous frequency
in CBF, so we only note again that since CBF assumes one
particular interpretation of this passage but does not prove that
interpretation nor defend it against the objections we have
raised, the entirety of the work suffers greatly.

2 Peter 1:1
We cited 2 Peter 1:1 in presenting our belief in the divine
nature of saving faith. Dr. Geisler says of this passage,
Peter claims only that they have “received” or
“obtained” (NKJV) their faith, but does not inform us
as to exactly how they got it. Using such a vague,
undefined statement as this to support their belief only
demonstrates how desperate the extreme Calvinists are
to find support of this unscriptural dogma.28
The only “desperation” here is on the part of someone
attempting to find some substance in CBF’s attempts at
exegesis. The text describes the faith these Christians have as
something they “received” or “were given.” The Greek term is
defined by one lexical source as “what comes to one, always
apart from one’s own efforts”29 and by another as “to receive,
with the implication that the process is related somehow to
divine will or favor.”30 So the text makes explicit reference to
a faith given by divine favor to all Christians. If this is not
relevant to the topic at hand, what possibly could be? Claiming
Calvinists are “desperate” while 1) ignoring such passages as 1
John 5:1 and 2) providing non-substantive responses to
passages such as this, is hardly helpful.

In Conclusion
Finally, on page 189 we find a major title which reads,
“Saving Faith is Something All Can Exercise.” This is
followed by:
Nowhere does the Bible teach that saving faith is a
special gift of God only to a select few. Further,
everywhere the Bible assumes that anyone who wills
to be saved can exercise saving faith. Every passage
where the Scriptures call upon unbelievers to believe
or repent to be saved implies this truth.
This truly does summarize the main problem with CBF: we
have now seen that the attempted response to the biblical
teaching that saving faith is a gift of God given to his elect
involves 1) skipping over certain passages such as 1 John 5:1
and Hebrews 12:2, and 2) providing non-substantive responses
to passages such as 2 Peter 1:1 and Philippians 1:29. So we are
left with unfounded “implications” rather than direct biblical
teaching. And these implications all come from the same
source: the over-riding belief in creaturely freedom, a freedom
that, sadly, is more important than the confession of the
Potter’s freedom to do with His creation as He sees fit, all to
His glory and honor.
Notes
1 Specifically the phrase used was, “God is not a divine
rapist” in reference to a denial of “irresistible force.”
David Basinger & Randall Basinger, Predestination &
Free Will (InterVarsity Press, 1985), p. 69.
2 Chosen But Free, p. 47.
3 We simply point out that many Augustine scholars do not
make the connection, and such great Protestant scholars as
B.B. Warfield viewed the Reformation as simply the
victory of Augustine’s doctrine of grace over Augustine’s
doctrine of the church, leading one to recognize that the
Donatist controversy informed Augustine’s view of
ecclesiology while the Pelagian controversy informed his
view of grace.
4 Chosen But Free, p. 48.
5 Ibid., p. 66.
6 Ibid., p. 49.
7 Ibid.
8 Ibid., p. 85.
9 Ibid., p. 86.
10 Ibid., p. 49.
11 Predestination & Free Will, David Basinger & Randall
Basinger, ed., (InterVarsity Press, 1985), pp. 69-70.
12 C. Samuel Storms, Chosen for Life: An Introductory Guide
to the Doctrine of Divine Election (Baker Book House,
1987), p. 126.
13 Ibid., p. 128.
14 Ibid., p. 130.
15 Chosen But Free, p. 89.
16 Ibid., p. 90.
17 Ibid., pp. 96-97
18 Ibid., p. 97.
19 Ibid., p. 35.
20 Ibid., p. 60.
21 Ibid., p. 182.
22 John Calvin, Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians,
in The Comprehensive John Calvin Collection (Ages
Digital Library, 1998).
23 Besides this, Calvin elsewhere teaches the very thing CBF
denies. When refuting the teachings of the Council of Trent
on justification Calvin, as the other Reformers, emphasized
the foundational difference between Rome and the Bible by
pointing to this very truth: that faith is a gift of God. He
wrote, “What they say of faith might perhaps hold true,
were faith itself, which puts us in possession of
righteousness, our own. But seeing that it too is the free
gift of God, the exception which they introduce is
superfluous.” John Calvin, Acts of the Council of Trent
With the Antidote, in The Comprehensive John Calvin
Collection.
24 Chosen But Free, p. 183.
25 Ibid., p. 185.
26 Ibid., p. 185.
27 Ibid., p. 186.
28 Chosen But Free, pp. 187-188.
29 Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament, 1994,
Timothy and Barbara Friberg, found in BibleWorks 4.0,
Hermeneutika Software, 1998.
30 Louw-Nida Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament
Based on Semantic Domains, 2nd Edition, Edited by J. P.
Louw and E. A. Nida, (United Bible Societes,1988), found
in BibleWorks 4.0, Hermeneutika Software, 1998.
 Chapter 14

The Potter’s Freedom Defended

There are few truths more precious to the Reformed believer

than the doctrines of grace. These are not issues of mere
debate. They are the very essence of the meaning of grace.
God’s freedom, His proper right of kingship, His unchanging
nature, and eternal decree, are precious. In a world where men
fancy themselves demigods the Calvinist says, “God reigns,
and I gladly serve Him.”
The freedom of God’s grace is the greatest joy that can be
known. To know, both in mind and heart, that God freely
chose to redeem me from the pit and draw me to Himself, is an
awesome thing. It brings deep humility to know that I did not
differ one wit from the person who remains in his or her sin. I
am no better than another. I was no more intelligent, no more
spiritual, no more wise, than anyone else. It was not something
I did, not something I accomplished, not something I would
ever have chosen had He not been gracious to me. I know the
depth of sin and depravity that yet remains in my heart, and
knowing it, realize my utter impotence to break its chains
outside of grace.
Grace is a wonderful word that speaks of God’s freedom
and God’s power. I cannot earn grace, merit grace, purchase
grace, or force grace. It is free or it is not grace. Yet the grace
of God that brings His elect safely into eternal rest is not
merely some persuasive power that may or may not
accomplish the ends for which God intends it. Grace is no
servant of man, dependent upon the creature for its success.
No, saving grace is God’s own power. Saved, and kept, by
grace. That is the Christian’s hope.
The Reformed believer cannot help but stop in wonder at
the words of Paul, “I have been crucified with Christ; and it is
no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which
I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who
loved me and gave Himself up for me.” He loved me! The
mighty Son of God loved me, the rebel sinner, unworthy of
even the first portion of His grace! And He loved me so
perfectly, so completely, that He gave Himself up for me on
the cross of Calvary, in some mysterious way joining me with
Himself so that His death is my death! My sins borne in His
body on the tree, bringing perfect redemption whole and free!
How can this possibly be?
The doctrines of grace touch every aspect of the Christian
life, and determine, truly, whether our faith will be God-
centered, or man-centered. If we realize that all things are
meant to result in His glory, and that we are but vessels of
mercy, made for honor and glory, we will live our lives so as
to reflect the glory of the divine and majestic Creator who
made us and sustains us. Our lives will be seen not as our own,
directed by our sovereign and autonomous will for whatever
ends we choose. We will live for the One who formed us and
made us and sustains us every moment.

What Difference Does It Make?

Dr. Geisler provided a chapter in CBF titled, “What
Difference Does It Make?” In this chapter he notes that “belief
affects behavior, and so ideas have consequences.”1 In this he
is quite correct. And, since the vast majority of the
argumentation in CBF is directed at Calvinism and is written
in support of Arminianism, it is obvious that he believes the
practical implications of Calvinism are important indeed, in a
strongly negative sense. Immediately before noting what he
calls “practical consequences of extreme Calvinism,” he
writes, “Likewise, false doctrine will lead to false deeds.”2 In
concluding our refutation of CBF we would like to note these
alleged concerns.
The first concern voiced is that Calvinism leads to “failing
to take personal responsibility for our actions.” This is false.
Calvinism has historically been in the forefront of every
meaningful revival, such as the Great Awakening, that
included as a part of its fabric personal behavior and a concern
for holiness. The greatest impetus that exists for personal
holiness and godly behavior is a recognition of one’s
creatureliness, the sovereignty of God, His glory, and our debt
to grace. The heart that has been touched by grace and knows
truly the depth of its own depravity and the greatness of God’s
power that was necessary to renew that heart is quite
concerned to take responsibility and glorify the God who has
so graciously saved.
Next we are told that Calvinism blames God for evil. This is
false. Calvinism’s God is so great, so powerful, and so free,
that He can answer the “big questions” without being stripped
of His freedom and His ability to positively decree whatsoever
comes to pass. It is the reverse position that is so lamentable.
Dr. Geisler, in this section, speaks of a speaker at a conference
that recognized that God had been involved in the death of his
son, and CBF, sadly, provides a surface level response that
shows no interest in entering into the depths of this topic. We
read,
I thought to myself, “I wonder what he would say if
his daughter had been raped?” Would he not be able to
come to grips with the matter until he concluded
victoriously that “God raped my daughter!” God
forbid! Some views do not need to be refuted; they
simply need to be stated.3
As one who has worked as a hospital chaplain and faced death
directly in the most difficult situations therein, I can only say
that such responses betray a tremendous lack of familiarity
with the great Reformed writers of the past who have spoken
to the matter of suffering with such power and depth that we
all can benefit greatly from listening to their words. If God is
not sovereign over all things, including the very moment of
death, then death does indeed have the final victory, the final
power. You simply cannot honestly look at someone and say,
“God has a purpose in your life” when you then have to say on
the other hand, “God had nothing to do with the death of your
loved one.” The greatest joy in death, the greatest comfort in
sorrow, is knowing that there is nothing that is purposeless,
nothing that is mere chance.
Arminianism simply cannot provide this kind of comfort. If
indeed, the ultimate authority in what takes place amongst men
is the autonomous free will of man (rather than the allwise
decree of the Almighty Creator of time and space), then to say
there is purpose in anything is at best a guess and at worst a
lie. Calvinists affirm the biblical truth:
Whatever the LORD pleases, He does,
In heaven and in earth, in the seas and in all deeps.
(Psalm 135:6)
Sadly, the Arminian reads this as, “Man does whatever he
pleases, and God handles the rest, as long as it does not
impinge upon the ultimate freedom of the creature.”
God works all things after the counsel of His will, including
those things that involve the creature, man. As the Bible
testifies:
The LORD nullifies the counsel of the nations;
He frustrates the plans of the peoples.
The counsel of the LORD stands forever,
The plans of His heart from generation to generation.
(Psalm 33:10-11)
God’s purpose is always just, holy, and good. All things
resound to His glory, even when we cannot see how this will
be. Even the greatest atrocities in history the Calvinist knows
were not purposeless nor senseless. Even if we cannot see the
purpose, we have the promise of God that a purpose did, and
does, exist. God is still on His throne.
It is so very sad, then, to read the following:
Actually, there is no real difference on this point
between the extreme Calvinists and fatalistic Islam in
which Allah says, in the holy book (the Qur’an), “If
We [majestic plural] had so willed, We could certainly
 have brought Every soul its true guidance; But the
Word from Me Will come true. ‘I will Fill Hell with
jinn and men all together’” (Sura 32:13).4
CBF then cites from Puritan writer William Ames who
concludes by saying, “Reprobation is the predestination of
certain men so that the glory of God’s justice may be shown in
them.”5 It is clearly Dr. Geisler’s purpose to say that these two
statements are parallel. Yet, to make such a statement shows
tremendous disregard for simple accuracy, let alone respect for
Ames or any who believe as he. Allah does not redeem rebel
sinners out of grace and mercy. Allah does not give His Son
for utterly undeserving men and women. Allah does not do
these things to bring glory to his grace! To ignore this
fundamental, definitional difference is to engage in the rankest
sort of adhominem argumentation that is far below the kind of
material we would expect to come from Dr. Geisler’s pen.
Next, Dr. Geisler alleges that Calvinism lays the ground for
universalism. This is false. Just the opposite is true.
Arminianism has opened that door, not Calvinism.
Universalists detest the concept of justice, holiness, and glory
that is part and parcel of Reformed theology. Universalists are
great proponents of free willism, not the freedom of God nor
the glory of God.
It is then said that Calvinism undermines trust in the love of
God. This is false, and just the opposite is true. Calvinism
presents a love that is powerful and effective, not a love that
tries and tries and tries but fails because it is dependent upon
the synergistic cooperation of the objects of that love. The love
proclaimed in Scriptural Calvinism is a love that saves, a love
that lasts, the love about which we sing, “Oh love that will not
let me go.…”
Indeed, at this point a most strange and incomprehensible
statement is made by Dr. Geisler. He says that extreme
Calvinism “has been the occasion for disbelief and even
atheism for many.”6 A footnote is appended at this point which
reads,
 Charles Darwin called hell a “damnable doctrine”…
And renowned agnostic Bertrand Russell said, “I do
not myself feel that any person who is really
profoundly humane can believe in everlasting
punishment.”7
We have no idea how this footnote is related to the assertion.
Have men fled into atheism out of hatred for the sovereign
God? Of course. Men flee into all sorts of idolatry as they
suppress the truth of God that is within them (Romans 1:18-
20). But what does the hatred of hell, a doctrine we would
assume Dr. Geisler believes, have to do with the assertion that
extreme Calvinism leads men to atheism?
We believe that a strong proclamation of the God of
Scripture is the only basis upon which to answer atheists and
their cavils against the Christian faith. Giving in to them and
affirming the humanist doctrine of free will is not the way to
win the battle. We believe there is nothing gained by hiding
the Bible’s plain teaching of the sovereignty of God simply to
pacify the humanist who is in active rebellion against God’s
sovereign power in the first place. A God who would create
and yet not maintain control over His creation is hardly a God
worthy of defending against atheism.
Next it is said that Calvinism undermines the motive for
evangelism. Despite the popularity of this accusation, it is
false. Those who evangelize out of concern for man’s free will
rather than out of obedience to Christ and His command, do so
for the wrong reasons, and will soon be disillusioned as men
reject their message and bring persecution against them.
This particular objection is most troubling to me personally.
I have seen its falsehood first hand. For many years I have led
volunteers in passing out Christian literature and witnessing to
people who are attending the semi-annual General Conference
of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Salt Lake
City, Utah. We are the only group who is in attendance at
every single Conference. We have talked to Arminians who
wonder why we bother, since “those are the hard cases
anyway.” Yes, they are the hard cases. And if I believed for a
second that it was up to their “free will” and a grace that
cannot change a heart, cannot renew a mind, I would never set
foot outside that place again. But I do not believe in free will,
nor do I believe in a grace that is a mere helping force and not
the renewing power of God. That is why we keep going. That
is why we see “hard cases” come out of Mormonism. When
you believe that there is no power in heaven or on earth that
can stop the Holy Spirit of God from drawing one of His elect
to Himself (including the will of the creature!) you can preach
the truth with boldness and trust God to save His people.
Indeed, the decline in American evangelicalism that
manifests itself in the substitution of programs, drama, coffee
bars, and anemic preaching that avoids a call to repentance can
be laid directly at the feet of Arminianism, not Calvinism.
When you have to worry about “offending” the almighty
creature you have to start using non-biblical methods of
“evangelism,” and inevitably it is the evangel that suffers. But
it is the gospel that speaks to man’s true need, and it is the
gospel that saves and results in changed (not slightly modified)
lives. And the gospel of Scripture is the gospel of the
Reformation.
Finally, it is asserted that Calvinism undermines the
motivation for intercessory prayer. This, too, is false. Indeed,
we turn the accusation around on Arminianism: if the Holy
Spirit is already convicting every man of sin as best He can,
and if God is already “giving His all” to save a particular
person, why in the world pray for that person? What good
would it do? The Arminian God can’t save the person you are
praying for without their help to begin with. Why intercede
with a God who is incapable of doing anything more than
offering a plan and then leaving the result to man?
Intercessory prayer is, by nature, Reformed. That is, it
recognizes the sovereignty of God and His ability to change
the hearts of men! Every such prayer is a tacit recognition that
the biblical doctrine is the Reformed one. As is often said, our
prayers are often far better than our professed theology.

What Now?
 Chosen But Free presents what it calls a “balanced view” of
divine election. We have seen that it does nothing of the sort. It
presents Arminianism under the guise of “moderate
Calvinism.” The majority of its argumentation is aimed
directly at simple Reformed theology, and its arguments
against Arminianism are actually arguments against process
theology and open theism. It can’t argue against Arminianism
since that is its core profession.
We have proven in this work that the redefinition of terms
inherent in CBF’s presentation must be rejected. The attempt
to turn Arminianism into Calvinism involves using words in a
manner that is utterly self-contradictory, such as speaking of
men who are not “so dead” that they cannot respond, or of
believing in “irresistible grace on the willing.” Further, we
have seen the arbitrary nature of the assertion that Calvin did
not believe in limited atonement, and hence all true Calvinists
are “extreme Calvinists.” The entire framework of the book
has been removed by simple factual investigation and
argumentation.
But the single most important issue that we wish to
communicate to the reader is this: CBF’s attempts to defend
Arminianism through the use of Scripture fail, consistently. On
an exegetical basis CBF does not pass the most cursory
examination, let alone an in-depth critique. The reader has
seen examples of eisegesis in every single chapter of CBF.
Surely the strength of Reformed theology is its biblical basis,
and the weakness of Arminian theology is its philosophical
basis. The Reformed position begins with Scriptural truths.
The Arminian position begins with philosophical necessities,
and we have seen, over and over again, the result of forcing
philosophical presuppositions into the text of Scripture. When
one can turn Romans 9:16 and John 6:44 into affirmations of
“free will,” obviously the text itself is not driving the
interpretation.
A person who believes in sola scriptura (Scripture alone is
the final and only infallible rule of faith for the Church) and in
tota Scriptura (one must believe all of Scripture, not just parts)
must wrestle with the issues raised in this book. A person who
cannot provide a contextually-based, fair and honest
interpretation of such passages as John 6:37-45, Romans 8:28-
9:23, or Ephesians 1:3-11, must face this fact and be willing to
abandon long-held and maybe even cherished traditions. We
firmly believe that only the Spirit of God can give to a person
the heart-felt desire to be in subjection to all the Word teaches.
The Potter’s freedom is precious to the Christian, for it is
the very basis of salvation itself. Our sovereign Creator is free
to be the good, holy, merciful, loving God that He is. It is our
prayer that the reader of this book will know this truth not just
in the mind, but most importantly, in the heart.
Notes
1 Chosen But Free, p. 131.
2 Ibid.
3 Ibid., p. 133.
4 Ibid., p. 133.
5 Ibid., p. 134.
6 Ibid., p. 135.
7 Ibid.
Scripture Index

Genesis

Genesis 4:1 200

Genesis 6:5 79

Genesis 8:21 79

Genesis 9:6 102

Genesis 29:30-31 216

Genesis 50:19-21 48

Exodus

Exodus 4:21 211, 221

Exodus 5:1-2 212, 221

Exodus 5:22 212

Exodus 7:13 221

Exodus 8:15 221

Exodus 9:12 221

Exodus 221
10:1,20,27

Exodus 33 210, 212

Exodus 33:17 199

Deuteronomy

Deuteronomy 221
1:38

Deuteronomy 221
3:28

Deuteronomy 4:2 22

Deuteronomy 7:7- 197

8

Joshua

Joshua 11:20 301

Judges

Judges 3:12 221

Judges 16:28 221

Psalms

Psalm 2:8-10 260

Psalm 5:5 216

Psalm 11:5 216

Psalm 33:8-11 42

Psalm 33:10-11 332

Psalm 51:5 80

Psalm 58:3 80

Psalm 105:25 301

Psalm 135:6 41, 332

Proverbs

Proverbs 21:1 43

Proverbs 30:6 22

Isaiah

Isaiah 10:12-17 47

Isaiah 10:5-7 46

Isaiah 14:27 42

Isaiah 29:16 44

Isaiah 41:21-23 42

Isaiah 45:1 63

Isaiah 45:9 44
Isaiah 46:9-10 42

Isaiah 46:10 54, 200

Isaiah 53:11 247

Isaiah 59:2 100, 101

Isaiah 63:17 301

Isaiah 64:8 45

Jeremiah

Jeremiah 1:5 197, 199

Jeremiah 13:23 80

Jeremiah 17:9 80

Jeremiah 18 225

Jeremiah 18:4-6 43

Jeremiah 18:8 224

Jeremiah 32:40 301

Ezekiel

Ezekiel 11:19 70

Ezekiel 18:32 136, 257

Ezekiel 36:26 69, 314

Daniel

Daniel 2 15, 63

Daniel 4:34-35 43

Daniel 4:35 68

Amos

Amos 3:2 197, 199

Jonah

Jonah 2:9 50

Malachi
Malachi 1:2-3 215, 216

Matthew

Matthew 1:21 40, 246, 258, 273

Matthew 7:22-23 197

Matthew 11:25-27 129, 190, 191, 192

Matthew 13:28- 264

30

Matthew 20:28 247

Matthew 23 137

Matthew 23:13 138

Matthew 23:37 25, 97, 98, 135, 136, 144, 145, 150, 169, 191, 264, 265, 323, 324

Matthew 25:41 253

Matthew 27:26 237

Mark

Mark 8:31 48

Mark 10:45 265

Mark 14:24 254

Luke

Luke 9:22 48

Luke 10:2 264, 265

Luke 19:10 247

Luke 23:34 263

John

John 1:10-11 182, 276

John 1:12-13 182, 183, 184, 185, 186

John 1:18 190

John 1:29 257, 273

John 2 166
John 2:2 194

John 2:24-25 165

John 3 182

John 3:16 22, 28, 142, 193, 194, 257, 316

John 3:16-18 323

John 3:18 28

John 3:19 276

John 4:14 267

John 5:21 172, 193, 194, 195

John 5:24 194, 195

John 5:28,29 194

John 6 28, 146, 162, 165, 167, 169

John 6:35 154, 166

John 6:36 155

John 6:37 26, 27, 28, 162, 241, 323

John 6:37-39 157, 178, 231

John 6:37-40 154, 158, 159, 160, 166

John 6:37-45 153, 194, 337

John 6:38-39 275

John 6:40 157

John 6:41-45 159

John 6:43-44 85

John 6:44 27, 73, 97, 157, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 166, 168, 240, 337

John 6:44-45 286

John 6:45 161, 162

John 6:65 160, 166, 168, 320

John 6:70 201

John 7 169

John 7:17 166, 168, 191, 192

John 8:24 108

John 8:26 107

John 8:31-34 87, 111, 113

John 8:34-48 111

John 8:43-44 111-113

John 8:47 161, 168, 286

John 8:48 111, 112

John 10:11-15 247

John 10:16 164

John 11 107

John 11:40-45 284

John 11:42 264, 265

John 11:43 69

John 11:49-52 275

John 12 162, 166

John 12:20-22 163

John 12:27-33 163

John 12:32 162-165

John 12:37-40 106,107

John 15:13 258

John 16:8 114, 323

John 17:9 194, 256, 258, 262, 263, 265, 273

John 17:19 245

John 20:2 306

John 21:25 263

Acts

Acts 2:23 54

Acts 3:16 294

Acts 4:27-30 49

Acts 4:28 58

Acts 5:31 321, 322

Acts 7:51 222

Acts 13:38 131

Acts 13:38-39 322

Acts 13:46-48 186, 187, 188, 189, 190

Acts 14:1 187

Acts 16:14 289, 323

Acts 16:31 172

Acts 17:30 149

Acts 21:28 141

Acts 22:10 188

Acts 22:15 141

Acts 28:23 188

Romans

Romans 1:16 259

Romans 1:18 81, 109

Romans 1:18-20 334

Romans 1:18-23 101

Romans 1:20 101, 109, 110

Romans 1:21-25 81

Romans 2:4 114, 294

Romans 3:10-11 113, 240

Romans 3:10-18 82, 113

Romans 3:11 64

Romans 3:15 101

Romans 3:19 114

Romans 5:1 91, 172

Romans 5:6 251, 252

Romans 6:16 115

Romans 6:23 97, 98

Romans 8 162

Romans 8-9 146

Romans 8:28 172

Romans 8:28-30 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 236

Romans 8:28- 337

9:23

Romans 8:29 173

Romans 8:29f 209

Romans 8:31-34 236, 237, 253

Romans 8:34 240

Romans 8:5-9 96

Romans 8:6-8 84

Romans 8:7-8 113, 114, 116, 189, 240, 309, 322

Romans 8:8 159

Romans 9 162, 196, 199, 202, 205, 215, 217

Romans 9:1-5 205, 206, 218

Romans 9:3 218

Romans 9:6 206

Romans 9:6-13 218

Romans 9:7-9 207

Romans 9:10-13 208, 209

Romans 9:11 127, 129, 219

Romans 9:11-13 215

Romans 9:12 218

Romans 9:13 215, 216, 219, 222

Romans 9:14-16 209, 210

Romans 9:15 219, 220

Romans 9:16 129, 166, 171, 186, 209, 210, 215, 219, 222, 225, 337

Romans 9:17-18 211

Romans 9:18 222, 306

Romans 9:18a, 219

18b

Romans 9:19, 20 223

Romans 9:19-20 213

Romans 9:21 312

Romans 9:21-23 226

Romans 9:21-24 213

Romans 9:22 222, 225

Romans 9:32 209

Romans 10:13 27

Romans 11:2 198

Romans 11:5 129

Romans 11:6 209

Romans 13:1 203

1 Corinthians

1 Corinthians 164
1:22-24

1 Corinthians 50, 289

1:26-31
1 Corinthians 108, 111
2:14

1 Corinthians 320
12:8-9

2 Corinthians

2 Corinthians 86
2:16

Galatians

Galatians 1:6-9, 290

15-16

Galatians 2:20 248

Galatians 2:16 209

Galatians 3:13 235

Galatians 3:28 141

Galatians 5:2 292

Ephesians

Ephesians 1 146, 162, 175, 178, 179, 180

Ephesians 1:3-11 337

Ephesians 1:4 63, 129, 131, 171, 172, 176, 177, 180, 222, 267, 269

Ephesians 1:5b 310

Ephesians 1:7 179

Ephesians 1:9 129

Ephesians 1:11 49, 180

Ephesians 1:12 181

Ephesians 2:1 100, 102, 103, 159

Ephesians 2:1-2 83

Ephesians 2:1-3 252

Ephesians 2:3 81

Ephesians 2:4 160

Ephesians 2:7 226

Ephesians 2:8 184, 296

Ephesians 2:8-9 91, 316

Ephesians 2:8-10 295

Ephesians 2:13- 164

16

Ephesians 5:2 237

Ephesians 5:25 237

Ephesians 6:23- 291

24

Philippians

Philippians 1:29 292, 296, 319, 325

Philippians 2:6-7 178

Colossians

Colossians 1:3-4 291

Colossians 1:20 252

Colossians 2:12- 103

13

Colossians 2:13 83, 103

Colossians 3:11 141

1 Thessalonians

1 Thessalonians 110
5:23

2 Thessalonians

2 Thessalonians 291
1:3

2 Thessalonians 55
1:7-9

1 Timothy

1 Timothy 1:14 294

1 Timothy 1:15 247

1 Timothy 2 141, 142, 144

1 Timothy 2:4 135, 136, 137, 139, 143, 148, 150, 169, 257, 259

1 Timothy 2:4-6 25, 265

1 Timothy 2:6 143

2 Timothy

2 Timothy 1:9 129, 179

2 Timothy 2:24- 149

25

2 Timothy 2:24- 294

26

2 Timothy 2:25- 112

26

Titus

Titus 2:2-11 140

Titus 2:13 257

Titus 2:14 258

Titus 3:2 140

Titus 3:5-6 290

Hebrews

Hebrews 2:9 247

Hebrews 2:10-17 245, 246

Hebrews 2:17 246

Hebrews 5:7, 9 245

Hebrews 7-10 142, 236, 253

Hebrews 7:15-22 239

Hebrews 7:23-25 239

Hebrews 7:25 176

Hebrews 7:27 250

Hebrews 8 241

Hebrews 8:10-13 242

Hebrews 9:11-12 245

Hebrews 9:11-14 242

Hebrews 9:12 179

Hebrews 9:26 242

Hebrews 9:28 250

Hebrews 10:1-4 243

Hebrews 10:10- 243

14

Hebrews 10:26- 244

29

Hebrews 11:6 172

Hebrews 12:1-2 293

Hebrews 12:2 325

James

James 1:18 183

James 3:9 102

1 Peter

1 Peter 1:1-2 1291

1 Peter 1:2 56, 63

1 Peter 1:20 198

1 Peter 1:21 294

1 Peter 2:24 235

2 Peter

2 Peter 1:1 294, 324, 325

2 Peter 1:1-3 147

2 Peter 2:1 193, 194, 231

2 Peter 3 148

2 Peter 3:9 25, 135, 136, 137, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 150, 169, 191, 222,
257, 265, 321

2 Peter 3:13 146

1 John

1 John 2:1 274

1 John 2:2 148, 193, 257, 261, 262, 271, 274, 275, 276

1 John 2:15 194

1 John 2:15-16 277

1 John 2:15-17 323

1 John 2:29 288

1 John 3:10 112

1 John 4:16 300

1 John 5:1 287, 288, 324, 325

1 John 5:4 316

Revelation

Revelation 5:9-10 166, 275

Revelation 13:8 267, 269

Revelation 20:10 102, 253

Revelation 20:11- 55
15

Revelation 22:18- 22
19
 Dr. Geisler’s Class Project Reviewed and
Refuted

I had not heard even a whisper about the inclusion of an

appendix (now the 13th appendix in the book) in the 2nd
edition of Norman Geisler’s Chosen But Free. Thankfully, a
kind brother in Indianapolis e-mailed me and informed me of
the appendix, assuming, however, that I had already seen it. I
had not. I immediately requested, and received, a copy of the
book from Bethany House Publishers. My correspondent had
only indicated that the response did not contain the one thing
that would, in fact, be necessary in such a reply: exegesis. But
I had to wait a few days to find out for myself.
When the book arrived I immediately noted that the
appendix, twelve pages in length, made scant, even rare,
reference to Scripture at all. A few references are noted in
passing, but there is not even the first attempt at the inclusion
of meaningful exegesis. This was the first in a long line of
disappointments, not only for me, but for anyone hoping to
find a meaningful response from Dr. Geisler. Surely, in light of
the argumentation provided in this book, Dr. Geisler would
provide an exegetical response clearing up the many errors of
fact and argumentation documented in CBF. But that kind of
reply has never been provided.
The next thing I noted was the glaring presence of ad
hominem argumentation, even in the midst of accusing me of
using it in The Potter’s Freedom (hereafter TPF). While the
review begins and ends with kind personal words about me,
the body is anything but kind or respectful. At one point,
before introducing an entire list of alleged errors (none of
which, upon examination, are found to be errors at all), the text
opines, “PF offers virtually unlimited opportunities for
beginning theology students to identify logical fallacies.” Later
we are told, “the author takes great pride in his exegetical
skills” even though we are not given any references or basis
upon which this assertion is made. Further examples follow in
the review. The appendix says TPF engages in name-calling,
ad hominem argumentation, and poisoning the well, which, if
true, would be serious charges.
But it did not take long for the next phase of the frustration
provoked by this response to set in: the incredible number of
simple page citation errors. As I sat down with the appendix,
the original printing of Chosen But Free and TPF, I very
quickly began to realize that someone had not done their
homework. Over and over again page citations are given to
TPF that are nowhere to be found, making responding to the
allegations just a bit difficult. Given the effort that went into
accurately citing CBF, it was disappointing to read, for
example, that I engaged in ad hominem argumentation against
Dr. Geisler by saying his exegesis is not “meaningful” (how
that is ad hominem is hard to understand) on page 20 of TPF.
However, there is nothing on pages 19, 20, or 21 that is
relevant to such a statement, especially since the word appears
in quotes in the appendix. There is no discussion of Geisler’s
exegesis in this section, and the closest one can come is the
use of the word “meaningful” on page 21 in the sentence,
“There is simply no attempt to interact on a meaningful level
with the many Reformed works that provide in-depth, serious
biblical exegesis and argumentation in defense of the
Reformed position.” That statement is proven true throughout
the rest of TPF, and surely is not an example of ad hominem.
The same kind of error is found in a number of the attempted
citations.
One allegation of an error on the part of TPF that is almost
humorous, and shows that the author(s) of the review seemed
to be a bit desperate to find errors in my work, is found in the
assertion that I mis-cited CBF. Here is the text:
For example, PF correctly notes that God’s electing
“in spite of” His foreknowledge could better be
rendered “independent of” (PF, 67) and that “so dead”
(PF, 104) is redundant. (Parenthetically, there are
similar errors in PF. For instance, “world” should be
“word” on 261 and 262, and PF misquotes my
statement about “unlimited” atonement [CBF, 199],
calling it “limited” atonement [PF, 248].)
The appendix is correct that “world” should be “word” on
261 and 262: the electronic version of Calvin I utilized does
indeed contain a scan error at that point. However, the second
allegation is most interesting, if for no other reason than to
give insight into how things like this happen in publication
work. The quotation of Dr. Geisler as it appears in TPF is
perfectly accurate. The first publication of CBF contained his
error at this point. I caught the error, and even contacted the
editorial staff at BHP to see if they could offer an explanation
for the statement. They could not. Seemingly unbeknownst to
the author(s) of the appendix, anyway, CBF went through a
second printing, and corrections were made at that time. Since
I had raised the issue, it was “fixed.” When the author(s), then,
began looking for things to pick on in the text of TPF he/they
unwittingly used the second printing, not the first (which is
what TPF was based on). As a result, I am accused of mis-
citing Geisler, when in fact, I cited him correctly, caught his
error, pointed it out, and hence was helpful in correcting his
own work! Yet, despite this, it is included in a rebuttal of my
work.
But the page number errors were almost insignificant next
to the most amazing aspect of this attempted review. The
reader may have noted that to this point I have referred to “the
appendix,” “the review,” and “the author(s),” not to Dr.
Geisler. The reason is simple: I find it next to impossible to
believe that Dr. Geisler actually wrote the entirety of this
review. In fact, I am convinced he wrote almost none of it.
Why? Because this review not only ignores the vast majority
of the book it is allegedly responding to, but much more, the
author(s) of this review either lacks the capacity, or the
integrity, to deal with the material before him or her in an
honest, contextual fashion. The interaction offered is so flawed
on a consistent basis that one is left, at times, completely
speechless that anyone with a high school education, let alone
multiple doctorates, could ever produce such material. So
consistently does the review miss the basics of the English
language that I have concluded that it simply could not come
from Dr. Geisler’s pen. Surely, he is accountable for it, as it
appears under his name, but I truly believe he entrusted the
task to someone else, perhaps a student or students, as this is
the only possible explanation for the kind of egregious errors
one finds in this response.
I have reason to believe that this appendix was a class
project. Shortly after TPF appeared, Dr. Geisler had a
conversation with a radio host known to me in the Phoenix
area regarding appearing on his radio program. The subject of
my book came up, and Dr. Geisler offered strong words of
condemnation. But one of the most interesting of his
statements was that he found the book so poor and so lacking
on a logical level that he said he was going to let his beginning
logic students document all the errors in the book. I combine
this statement reported to me with something else I know of
Dr. Geisler from our previous (and friendly) interactions. Dr.
Geisler does not believe he can learn anything from someone
more than twenty years his junior (as I am). I do not believe
Dr. Geisler believes that I, someone young enough to be his
son, have any right to even address this subject, let alone
respond to him as I have. Hence, leaving such a distasteful
task to a bunch of beginning logic students would be
appropriate in light of the hubris he feels I have shown in
daring to respond to his work. The combination of his own
statement regarding using his logic students, his clear belief
that someone as young as I am could not possibly have
anything meaningful to say on this subject, and the abject
incoherence of the appendix itself, convince me that Dr.
Geisler is not the direct author of this appendix. Yes, he
remains responsible for putting it in print, but I do not believe
it came from his pen.
 The “class project” thesis likewise explains the page number
problem: it is highly unlikely that anyone went out and
actually purchased multiple copies of TPF so that great care
could be taken in accurately documenting the project. Instead,
it is more probable photocopies were provided which may, or
may not, contain the proper page numbers. In any case, it is
painfully obvious that many hands had a part in producing this
error-filled document, without a single editor checking
accuracy in the process.
Strong words require factual backing. Here is the classic
example of how this review completely ignores context and
loses all contact with reality in its desperate attempt to give the
appearance of a response to TPF.
On page 29 of TPF I was just getting started in explaining
the need for a response to Dr. Geisler’s attack upon Reformed
theology. In explaining various aspects of the issues raised by
Dr. Geisler, I wrote the following paragraph:
There is great confidence in trusting in God’s sovereignty,
especially when it comes to the fact that even Christians
are willing to place their own supposed freedom and
autonomy over the true freedom and autonomy of God. I
have seen many precious souls struggle through these
foundational issues and emerge changed, strengthened,
with a new and lasting appreciation of the holiness and
love of God along with a passion for His grace that
cannot be erased. While I am grieved at the confusion
that books like CBF cause, I am confident that the Word
is so clear, so plain, and so compelling, that the mere
presentation of its truths is sufficient for the child of God.
And it is to that we now turn.
I honestly do not believe this is a difficult paragraph to
understand. The context and meaning are easily discerned. I
am not here discussing Dr. Geisler’s exegesis. In fact, he is not
mentioned in the paragraph. CBF is mentioned only in passing
as a source of confusion. But the point of the paragraph is
simple: God’s truth remains God’s truth, and when Christians
honestly seek to know God’s truth from the pages of His
Word, they will find it. It may involve struggle, as they work
through traditions and misunderstandings, but the Word is
sufficient for the task.
Evidently, however, the paragraph caused no end of
difficulty for the author or authors of the attempted response in
CBF. Twice a single phrase from this page is cited in the
response. That phrase is “mere presentation,” found in the
second to last line of the paragraph, “I am confident that the
Word is so clear, so plain, and so compelling, that the mere
presentation of its truths is sufficient for the child of God.”
The first time “mere presentation” appears is on page 255
under the subtitle, “Ad hominem.” We read,
This fallacy literally means a response “to the man”
(rather than to the argument). Throughout PF, the author
takes great pride in his exegetical skills, while any
exegesis of the text contrary to his is labeled not
“consistent” (19), not “meaningful” (20), not “in depth”
(136), a “mere presentation” (29), or not based on
“definitive” works (254).
None of the citations are even semi-accurate examples of ad
hominem, and each is a fascinating example of how to avoid
the obvious, but note especially the inclusion of the phrase
“mere presentation” and the reference, (29). Here we are told
that if a person were to look on page 29 of TPF they would
find a seemingly prideful dismissal of Dr. Geisler’s exegetical
conclusions as a “mere presentation.” And yet, the reader is
invited to once again read the above cited paragraph and
attempt to figure out how anyone could possibly make any
logical connection between what actually appears on page 29
of TPF and what this review alleges is on that page. There is
simply no way to so completely and utterly misread such a
passage. It is bad enough that one such blunder would appear
in the text of the review, but the error is only compounded by
the fact that the same review repeats the same error but this
time it contradicts itself and gives a completely different
context! This is why this might well have been a “class
project,” as this kind of incredible inconsistency would be
explainable on that basis. Note what is said on page 258:
 It contends that a “mere presentation” of my view is
not sufficient (29), yet it sometimes does the same for
its view and at times even no presentation at all, such
as an explanation of one of the most difficult verses
for extreme Calvinists, 2 Peter 2:1 (251).
Note that this time the phrase “mere presentation” is placed
not in the alleged context of ad hominem argument against the
exegesis of Dr. Geisler, but in a completely different arena!
One is simply left without words to describe the utter lack of
coherent thought that lies behind such a reply.
A singular example, you say? Hardly. The reader who
actually sits down, as I have, and looks each reference up will
be left in shock by the end of the second page of this review.
Allow me to present another example that displays the same
complete lack of comprehension of the basics of language and
discourse.
To grasp just how completely this review misses the mark, it
is necessary to direct the reader back to a fairly lengthy section
of the preceding text. I refer the reader back to pages 56-59,
where I began to carefully and methodically trace Dr. Geisler’s
view on “predeterminately knowing/knowingly
predetermining” back through his earlier writings. I interacted
with these sources, attempting to explain Geisler’s view as
accurately as possible. The reader will benefit by reviewing
the material beginning on page 56 with the words, “Right here
we run directly into the most problematic element of Geisler’s
paradigm” all the way through page 59, concluding with
“While Geisler repeats his assertion that one cannot logically
determine the relationship between foreknowledge and
predetermination, his constant emphasis upon the absolute
freedom of the creature betrays the reality of his system.”
The reader will note that the discussion of Geisler’s position
is full and as clear as his own confusing and non-standard use
of terminology will allow. This response ignores the entirety of
this chapter’s argumentation, choosing instead to isolate
phrases from it rather than deal with its actual content. But, the
author(s) did choose to take a particularly reprehensible shot at
me based upon this section anyway. The appendix provides a
long list of alleged misrepresentations (none of which prove to
be accurate upon examination), followed by the complaint that
the author counts no less than forty examples of
misrepresentation of his position. Then we encounter these
amazing words:
Interestingly, in one place PF even admits finding it
difficult to understand my view (58). One might ask
how something can be properly evaluated which is not
properly understood. Nonetheless, this failure to
comprehend my position does not impede in the least
the overly zealous, pedantic, and at times somewhat
arrogant critique of it in PF. (254)
Such writing once again leaves the serious reviewer in
shock. One can find the relevant text cited above, specifically
the beginning of the paragraph that reads, “It is very difficult
to understand these words, given that they are based upon the
assertion that there is no logical priority of foreordination to
foreknowledge, for they are ‘one.’” But as anyone can see, this
was not an admission that I found it difficult to understand the
view, nor that I failed to comprehend it! How can the author(s)
of this response possibly read that paragraph in the midst of
the entirety of the context which provides full and accurate
discussion of Geisler’s position and make such a claim as this,
and then have the temerity to follow it up with language such
as “overly zealous, pedantic, and at times arrogant”?
By this time the reader is surely beginning to understand
why I see a group project or a misguided student behind this
response. And while Dr. Geisler remains responsible for it (it
appears under his name), surely it is not possible that any
person with graduate training could miss the basic meaning of
language with such consistency.
Still unconvinced? Maybe these are just two anomalies,
albeit glaring and egregious ones? Well, let’s try one more just
to make sure the point is firmly established.
One of the issues that I raised in TPF had to do with the
way CBF dealt with truly scholarly Reformed material, such as
the writings of John Owen or John Piper. I documented how
CBF used highly unscholarly techniques to attack Piper’s work
and allege error when in fact nothing of the substance of
Piper’s work was even quoted, let alone refuted (a technique
taken to the extreme in this response). I likewise noted the
amazing accusation of “adding to the Bible” on the part of
CBF against John Owen. As this runs in very close parallel
with the treatment of my own work, and as it again
demonstrates that the original context of any work under
review by CBF and its author(s) is utterly irrelevant, I direct
the reader to pages 21-23 of this work, beginning with the
sentence “Most frustrating to the Reformed believer who has
provided a reasoned and Scripturally-based defense of their
beliefs is the utter lack of serious interaction on the part of
CBF with such works” and ending with “One cannot avoid
noting that aside from this allegedly ‘sober reminder’ offered
by Geisler, there is not a single word of meaningful
argumentation or refutation provided.”
Now surely this section would, if it were in error, demand a
response from Dr. Geisler. Surely the documentation of such
handling of material in such an unscholarly fashion would
require a response, and rebuttal, if the accusation were
unsound. But no rebuttal or correction is offered. Indeed, the
documentation of this, and so many other errors, is passed
over in utter silence. But, as with the above cases, this new
response does not blush to take a phrase from this section,
documenting a clear error in the original book, rip it from its
context, and turn it around into an accusation of error on my
part. Note this incredible assertion:
Name calling
Another favorite technique of PF is the fallacy of
name calling. Consider only the following out of
numerous examples. My reasoning and conclusion are
labeled “a non-response” (217)…“quite simply
ridiculous” (23)….
The reader will note that the phrase that is here turned into
an example of “name calling” (!) came from the above section
wherein I am documenting the utter disregard for the original
context and the partial citation (CBF cuts off the beginning
phrase “the sense is”) of Owen’s words. Such writing is “quite
simply ridiculous.” That is not name calling, that is factual
reporting of an error the author(s) of this response ignores. The
line makes perfect sense in its context, is perfectly accurate,
and must be responded to by Dr. Geisler. But this response
fails at every point it possibly could in providing a meaningful
answer.
But in further evidence of the fact that this entire appendix
has been cobbled together by a group of people (and then not
edited for consistency or accuracy thereafter), elsewhere in the
appendix the same section is cited and, once again, faulted for
a completely different reason. If one goes back and reads the
section in the Introduction where I address Geisler’s
horrifically poor handling of Piper’s book, The Justification of
God, one will see that I documented partial and misleading
citations; I pointed out that Geisler never even tries to touch
Piper’s exegesis; and I concluded the section with these words:
“While Geisler is content to simply cite secondary sources
regarding Romans 9, Piper does original exegetical work. It is
not sufficient response on Geisler’s part to simply allege an
error while ignoring the counter evidence.”
Once again, any serious reading of my comments makes it
clear that I faulted Geisler for ignoring Piper’s exegesis while,
when he himself addresses Romans 9, he relies not upon
exegesis of the text of Scripture, but upon secondary sources.
Yet, the context-challenged writers of the appendix to the
second edition can read these very words and come to this
conclusion: “PF chides CBF for citing secondary sources,
while it cites a secondary source of its own (Piper) on the same
passage (24)” (CBF 258). Once again, I refuse to believe a
man of Dr. Geisler’s stature could possibly miss the plain
meaning of the English language this badly. I said Dr. Geisler
did not provide primary exegesis of Romans 9 but relied upon
secondary sources; I likewise said Geisler misrepresented
Piper’s words, and cited Piper to prove it. The authors of this
work are so far removed from having an understanding of
what they are reading they cannot see the vast difference
between the two issues. If this was a class project, it is surely
hoped the grades reflected the lack of reading comprehension
on the part of the students!
Nameless Folks and Misdirection
One of the saddest examples of the methodology of this
review is found near the end of the appendix, on page 262. It
seems the author(s) of this review felt it would be best to
include their worst examples of mis-citation, mis-reading, and
error in the midst of personal attacks. So we have an entire
subsection titled “Pride and Exclusivism,” which begins,
I am not alone in detecting a proud and exclusivistic
undertone in PF. For example, it calls its view “the
Reformed” view (38, emphasis added), while
summarily dismissing other Reformed theologians
CBF cites who do not agree with major points in its
presentation (e.g., William Shedd and R. T. Kendall).
The author of PF immodestly announces, “I will be
demonstrating” that Geisler’s view “is in error” (30).
Better to set forth one’s case and let the reader decide
that.
One has to wonder who these nameless, faceless people are
who join with the author(s) in “detecting” this pride? I
“detected” lots of feelings I could have mentioned in regard to
Dr. Geisler’s book, but you do not present such things unless
you can back up what you are saying. But the great irony is
that in the midst of accusing me of being prideful, the
author(s) of this review purposefully misrepresent me and give
clear evidence of their desire to do so. How so? Note the
second to last quoted line above which reads:
The author of PF immodestly announces, “I will be
demonstrating” that Geisler’s view “is in error” (30).
When I first read this, I only noted that it is hardly
immodest to say that someone’s view is in error, unless, of
course, that person does not believe you intelligent enough, or
old enough, or trained enough, to even critique their position.
But when I looked up the actual context of the citation I again
groaned in disbelief at what I found. Here is the context from
TPF:
The Reformed tradition is rich in honest dialogue and
debate. Those who love truth will not be offended by
honest, direct refutation and interaction. The
“politically correct” culture we live in should not be
allowed to silence meaningful theological debate. Dr.
Geisler himself has written:
Third, what about those who insist that
drawing lines will divide Christians? In
response it must be lovingly but firmly
maintained that it is better to be divided by
truth than to be united by error. There is an
unhealthy tendency in evangelical Christianity
to hide under the banner of Christian charity
while sacrificing doctrinal purity.
In the spirit of these words I offer a rebuttal of Dr.
Geisler’s work. This is not meant to be a presentation
of the Reformed view so ably accomplished by others:
my positive presentation will be limited to establishing
facts that are not in evidence from a reading of CBF.
Instead, I will be demonstrating that the biblical
argumentation provided by Norman Geisler is in error.
It is my hope that the reader will be edified by the
consistent focus upon biblical exegesis, for this is,
truly, the heart and soul of Reformed theology.
As I compared the citation to the original I could not help
but be amazed at the use of the quotation marks in CBF. Here
we cannot blame eyesight. We cannot blame a simple
misreading of the text. This is purposeful and planned. I said I
would demonstrate that the biblical argumentation provided by
Norman Geisler is in error. I did that. More than two dozen
scholars and pastors whose names are found on TPF, and
hundreds of others who have contacted me since then, agree
that I did just that. The fact that Dr. Geisler does not even
attempt a response on an exegetical level gives eloquent
testimony that I did exactly what I promised to do. But that is
not what is quoted in the appendix to CBF. No, through the
purposeful and misleading use of quotation marks the actual
substance of my statement, focused upon biblical
argumentation, is deleted, and Geisler’s entire view, his entire
theology, is placed in its stead. This, then, becomes the basis
for the accusation of pride and arrogance on my part. How
could a young, over-zealous, arrogant, prideful, at times
pedantic apologist like James White dare to say he will prove
Dr. Norman Geisler’s entire viewpoint in error? How brash!
But, of course, the original citation could not be used without
deleting its substance. How strange would it look to accuse me
of being prideful simply for saying (and proving!) someone
else’s biblical argumentation is in error? Can the biblical
argumentation provided by two sides who contradict one
another both be correct? Of course not. Hence, it follows of
necessity, that the quotation, to be useful to the appendix, had
to be “spun” and changed. And so it was. Such is simply
disgraceful in the context of Christian dialogue and
disagreement.
Where’s the Exegesis?
The vast majority of this response should never have seen the
light of day. Given the character of TPF as an exegetical reply
to CBF, the logical response would involve exegetical rebuttal
and argument. But, of course, this is exactly what is avoided
by this reply. No exegesis of any disputed passage is offered.
No exegesis of the many passages the original book simply
overlooked were relevant is provided.
One brief section, subtitled “Improper Exegesis,” at least
raises the issue of the interpretation of the text. But it is
tremendously surface-level, and says:
As readers of PF can detect for themselves, the author
is convinced of his exegetical skills and chides CBF
for its alleged ‘lack thereof.’ Yet PF repeatedly reads
“some men” into passages that clearly and
emphatically say “all men” (140, 142). It insists
against the context that 2 Peter 3:9 (where God desires
that all men be saved) is not speaking about salvation
(146—147). It claims that John 1:12—13 does not say
 “received” when the very word is used by John in this
text (185). It overlooks the context that speaks of
unrepentant people (Rom. 9:22), claiming Romans 9
affirms that the “only difference” between vessels of
wrath and vessels of mercy is God’s action. It distorts
the word “saves” to “saves himself” (64), and so on.
(262)
TPF contains literally hundreds of pages of positive
exegetical presentation, and this is the extent of the response
offered to it? TPF documented dozens of examples of
eisegesis on the part of Dr. Geisler. This is all the response that
can be given? And even in offering these few sentences, the
appendix stumbles over itself in making clear errors yet once
again. Note the first allegation: without responding to a single
argument or point of exegesis, this response simply asserts that
I must be wrong in my understanding of the term “all.” But
since I provided contextual and linguistic arguments that are
completely ignored, how can this be called a meaningful or
scholarly response? Then the author(s) utterly misread the text
yet again with the assertion regarding John 1:12. Compare this
misrepresentation with the actual text from TPF:
But the objection does raise an interesting issue: does
the text itself indicate a relationship between believing
and the new birth? There are certainly some points
that Dr. Geisler would have to consider to make his
assertions carry weight:
1) John, as is his custom, refers to Christians
as “the believing ones” (τοι┘‘′ πιστεύουσιν).
English translations normally miss this
important element of John’s gospel (the
contrast between true, saving faith, which is
almost always expressed through the use of
the present tense indicating an on-going,
living faith, versus false faith which is almost
always placed in the aorist tense, making no
statement about its consistency or vitality). It
is literally, “even to those who are believing in
His name” or “the believing ones (who
 believe) in His name.” The term “believing” is
a present participle.
2) The verb “born” (ἐγεννήθησαν) is in the
aorist passive form. In its context it is plainly
said to be an act of God. All human agency is
denied.
3) It follows, then, that verse 13 is a
description of “the believing ones” of verse
12. Nothing is said in the text that the new
birth is “received” by an “act of free will.” In
fact, the exact opposite is stated clearly, “the
ones born not of the will of man….” It is an
amazing example of how preconceived
notions can be read into a text that CBF can
say the text makes the new birth dependent
upon an act of “free will” when the text says
the opposite (184-185).
Immediately the reader again sees the elementary mistake of
the author(s). Nowhere does TPF say the word “received” is
not in the text. This is yet another inexplicably glaring error of
reading. The actual text of TPF says, “Nothing is said in the
text that the new birth is ‘received’ by an ‘act of free will.’”
This is completely true. The text speaks of receiving Christ,
not the new birth. By ignoring the exegesis offered, the
response again paints a picture with no reality, and proves
itself incapable of meaningful argumentation.
The last two examples of errors in exegesis make no more
sense than the preceding ones. The entirety of chapter nine of
TPF, 24 pages of exegetical presentation and interaction with
Geisler’s piece-meal interpretation of Romans 9 in CBF, is
dismissed with a wave of the hand. And its brief, unexplained
mention of “saved” to “saved himself” again causes any
person who has a concern for context to shake the head in
disbelief, as the original text bears out. The citation begins
with a quotation from CBF:
Whatever else may be said, God’s sovereignty
over the human will includes His initiating,
 pursuing, persuading, and saving grace
without which no one would ever will to be
saved. For “there is no one who understands,
no one who seeks God” (Rom. 3:11).
Again the words are specific: God initiates, God
pursues, God persuades, God gives saving grace, but,
despite it all, the final decision is man’s, “without
which no one would ever will to be saved.” God wills
to save man, but unless man wills to save himself, he
will not be saved. This is thorough-going
Arminianism.
There is, of course, no “distortion” of any terms at all in the
text. In fact, the comments flow directly from the
consideration of Dr. Geisler’s own words. How is this an error
of exegesis? No one but the students in Dr. Geisler’s class
know for sure.
Surely no one can seriously call this a rebuttal of the
exegesis offered in TPF, and such must be quite the
disappointment for those Arminians who prefer to call
themselves “moderate Calvinists” who were chomping at the
bit for some kind of rebuttal of TPF. While some of the most
die-hard may find something of comfort in this response, those
actually looking for scholarly rebuttal have been sorely
disappointed.
Drop Back Ten and Punt
All who have benefited from the work of Norman Geisler in
the past cannot help but feel a true sense of embarrassment at
the publication of this response. I am actually thankful that I
am the object of this review, for if it had been offered in
response to enemies of the faith, they would have known no
bounds to their joyous documentation of its every error, and
would have used this as an argument against everything good
that Dr. Geisler has written.
At the end of his review Dr. Geisler says he prays that I will
channel my “considerable talent and zeal toward the more
pressing need of defending Christianity against those who
deny the fundamentals of the faith, not those who affirm
them.” While this may sound like a noble sentiment, I have to
wonder: why did he write Chosen But Free? Why did he
choose to identify the faith of Reformed Baptist Churches,
conservative Presbyterian Churches, and many others, as
irrational and unbiblical? Are we to understand that he has the
right to do this, but those of us at the pointed end of his sword
must ignore his highly errant and flawed attacks upon our
faith? Such a statement lacks any discernable rational
foundation.
One thing is beyond all doubt: this response proves, even
more clearly than did the text of TPF, that Dr. Geisler has no
meaningful response to offer to Reformed scholarship, and in
particular to the exegesis of the inspired text offered therein.
In closing, I would like to ask Dr. Geisler to consider well
the nature of this appendix. As I have said, I do not believe he
wrote it. I believe someone else, perhaps even a group,
cooperated in piecing together disparate and inconsistent
comments on the text of the book. But whatever its
provenance, it exists today as part of the 2nd edition of Chosen
But Free, and the front of the book says “Norman Geisler.”
That places the above documented errors (a word that seems
extremely weak to cover the kind of misrepresentations we
have seen) squarely in his realm of responsibility. And hence I
will say with all seriousness, “Dr. Geisler, do the right thing:
pull this appendix, print a retraction, and simply do what is
right.” You do not attack a fellow believer with such terms as
arrogant, over-zealous, pedantic, and prideful while utilizing
this kind of glaring misrepresentation and false argumentation
as a shield. It is simple scholarly negligence. Unless Dr.
Geisler can explain how this kind of material has some
relevance to the actual topic at hand, it should be pulled from
circulation with apologies to all concerned, but especially to
his own readers. There is no other course to follow.
 Two Controversial Texts

This work has been blessed of God over the past eight years. It
has challenged, and enlightened, many who struggled to work
through the issues surrounding God’s kingly freedom and
man’s responsibility in the gospel of Jesus Christ. The initial
range of discussion was fixed by the claims and arguments of
Norman Geisler’s Chosen But Free, but that work opened the
door to a full presentation of the doctrines of God’s sovereign
grace. It was the biblical nature of those doctrines that has
been used to bring many to an understanding, appreciation,
and love, of these truths.
Two texts that were not discussed in the first edition of this
book will be examined, albeit briefly, in this addition to the
original text of The Potter’s Freedom. The first was noted on
page 282, where I referred the reader to lengthy, full
discussions of 2 Peter 2:1 in the following words:
2 Peter 2:1ff, discussed on pp. 195-197, is fully
discussed in both John Owen’s The Death of Death in
the Death of Christ and more importantly in Gary
Long’s Definite Atonement (Backus Books, 1977). Dr.
Geisler’s entire discussion of the meaning of ἀγοράζω
and δεσπóτἣ is answered in full by Long’s book,
written twenty-two years prior. This is noteworthy, for
Geisler’s discussion ends with, “In view of this New
Testament usage, the burden of proof rests on the
extreme Calvinists to prove that Peter is using this
 term in any other than a redemptive sense here.” Long
provided the evidence in full.
One will note that this endnote provides a criticism of
Geisler, for his comments on the passage showed no
familiarity with these pre-existing works. The reader has two
rather lengthy discussions to pursue in light of this endnote.
But, despite this, Dr. Geisler’s 2nd edition contains the
following wording:
[The Potter’s Freedom] contends that a “mere
presentation” of my view is not sufficient (29), yet it
sometimes does the same for its view and at times
even no presentation at all, such as an explanation of
one of the most difficult verses for extreme Calvinists,
2 Peter 2:1 (251). (CBF 258)
We note in the following appendix that the first claim is
utterly without foundation and out of context. We add in
passing that once again the authors show a deep unfamiliarity
with the text they are pretending to review, for they do not
even note the above cited reference. But in any case, though
the exegesis of the dozens of key texts presented in TPF was
ignored by Geisler’s response, we will gladly address 2 Peter
2:1 as well.
The second text is never mentioned by CBF, so why include
it here? Mainly because this work has come to have a role that
I did not originally foresee: as an introduction to Reformed
theology, it would be useful to address the most common text I
have heard cited to me that was not itself raised by Dr. Geisler,
that being 1 Timothy 4:10.
There is a danger, of course, in addressing texts in this
fashion. In the body of this work I have attempted to address
texts in the broad context of the great themes of atonement, or
sin, or God’s sovereignty. This helps to reinforce the
consistency and harmony of God’s revelation. Addressing
these texts alone is not my preferred way of approaching
exegesis. But hopefully the example of contextual exegesis
provided earlier in the body of this work will provide a
counter-balance to these isolated discussions.
The Savior of All People, But in Particular, of Believers
For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have
fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of
all men, especially of believers. (NASB)
For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our
hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all
people, especially of those who believe. (ESV)
This particular section of Paul’s epistle to Timothy contains
a number of exhortations, and there is not a single, over-
arching contextual argument being pursued. As such, each
segment of the text has to be carefully examined and we must
take care not to force the text into a foreign context simply
because it is possible to do so. The greatest danger present
when examining texts that are brief and without a specific
discursive context is found in reading a particular context into
the text that fundamentally alters a particular writer’s over-all
message. The Arminian who begins with a universal assertion
of the abilities and capacities of man (over against the teaching
of Paul we have established earlier in reference to man’s
inabilities that flow from his fallen state) can easily find in
such isolated texts a breeding ground for prooftexting.
The first observation to be offered is that unlike the texts we
have examined before, where we have a specific discourse on
a particular subject, this passage mentions the role of God as
Savior “in passing.” No explanation is provided, and the
reader is to understand these words in light of a pre-existing,
shared belief. Further, the topic of the text is not the how and
why of salvation at all. It is not a specifically soteriological
context, but is instead speaking of how Christians are to
behave, to live in this world, and what we are to be striving
for. The statement is a brief comment, made in passing. As
such, sound exegetical practice would require caution in
pressing this text into service as a foundational prooftext for
either side.
Next, we note that the passage is liable to abuse by
universalists who, overthrowing Paul’s plain teaching
elsewhere, would insist that God is the Savior of each and
every individual. These would see the “all men” or “all
people” extensively, i.e., each and every individual, and they
would see “Savior” in its fullest possible application. This
would put this passing statement in direct contradiction to
many other clear statements by Paul, but such is the tactic of
the universalist.
The Arminian, however, introduces an interesting concept
of potentiality in his reading of this text. God is Savior
potentially, becoming Savior in truth upon the act of human
faith. The Arminian joins the universalist in seeing “all
people” extensively, each and every individual, and as a result,
assumes that if God is Savior of each individual, at least in
potentiality, that the atonement of Christ must be potential in
nature as well. Those who reject a substitutionary/penal
viewpoint of the atonement would likewise point to such a
reading, just as the historic Arminians did, who likewise
rejected the Reformed view of substitutionary atonement.
The Reformed interpreter recognizes that here, as in so
many other places, reading “all people” extensively is far more
indicative of modern Western thinking than it is New
Testament thinking. Instead, recognizing the theme in Paul’s
epistles to Timothy that militates against the Jewish
exclusivists (those who would limit God’s blessings to those in
the covenant, those bearing the covenant signs), they would
argue that “all people” points us to Jews and Gentiles, or, to
use more specific biblical language, “men from every tribe,
tongue, people and nation” (Revelation 5:9). Hence the
comment is an assertion of God’s Saviorhood of Jews and
Gentiles, over against the Jewish exclusivists, and is not a
commentary on the extent of the atonement, intention of the
atonement, etc. and etc.
Most of the controversy has centered around the proper
translation of the Greek term malista (μάλιστα), rendered in
most translations as “especially.” George W. Knight III helps
us to understand the issues relating to the translation of the
term and its meaning:
The assumption of the previous clause is now made
explicit: we hope in the living God as the one őς ἐ στιν
σωτὴρ πάντων ἀνθρώπων. Although the phrase σωτὴρ
πάντων ἀνθρώπων occurs only here in the NT, the
concept has been set forth earlier in 1 Timothy in
nearly identical words (2:3, 4; see the notes there,
especially on πάντες ἂνθρωποι). Here, as in 2:1–7, the
phrase πάντες ἂνθρωποι designates “all sorts of
people.” σωτήρ means “Savior” in the soteriological
sense that it has elsewhere in 1 Timothy and the PE
(PE 10x: 1 Tim. 1:1; 2:3; 4:10; Tit. 1:3, 4; 2:10, 13;
3:4, 6; 2 Tim. 1:10). The focus on the promise of
ζωῆς, τῆς νῦν καὶ τ ς μελλούσης, and on a hope set
upon θεῷ ζῶντι, demands that understanding of
σωτήρ here. But to understand σωτὴρ πάντων
ἀνθρώπων in the sense that all people are actually and
surely saved would be contrary to Paul’s teaching
elsewhere since Paul clearly regards some people as
bearing God’s retribution and punishment in the
penalty of eternal destruction (cf., e.g., 2 Thes. 1:7–
10; 1 Thes. 1:10). Thus another understanding has
been suggested in connection with πάντων and that is
that σωτήρ is used in the broadest sense as Preserver
and Giver of life for all people and then, in addition to
that, as Savior in the spiritual sense for believers. This
is certainly possible, and appeal could be made to 6:13
(cf. Acts 14:15–17; 17:24–28). But a better solution
may be had by an alternate understanding of μάλιστα.
The phrase μάλιστα πιστῶν contains the one
qualification that Paul and the NT always posit for
receiving God’s salvation, i.e., “trust” in God as the
only Savior. Absolute πιστῶν, as used here and
elsewhere in the NT, refers to those who believe in
Christ, i.e., Christian believers (BAGD s.v. 2; e.g.,
Acts 16:1; 2 Cor. 6:15; 1 Tim. 5:16; 6:2a, b; cf. τῶν
πιστῶν in 1 Tim. 4:12; thus five of the seven plural
occurrences of πιστός in the PE have the meaning
“believers,” i.e., 1 Tim. 4:3, 10, 12; 6:2 [2x]).
μάλιστα** (NT 12x, Pl. 8x, PE 5x: Acts 20:38; 25:26;
26:3; Gal. 6:10; Phil. 4:22; 1 Tim. 4:10; 5:8, 17; Tit.
1:10; 2 Tim. 4:13; Phm. 16; 2 Pet. 2:10) has usually
 been rendered “especially” and regarded as in some
way distinguishing that which follows it from that
which goes before it. Skeat (“Especially the
Parchments”) argues persuasively that μάλιστα in
some cases (2 Tim. 4:13; Tit. 1:10, 11; and here)
should be understood as providing a further definition
or identification of that which precedes it and thus
renders it by such words as “that is.” He cites several
examples from papyrus letters that would seem to
require this sense and that would in their particular
cases rule out the otherwise legitimate alternate sense.
If his proposal is correct here, which seems most
likely, then the phrase μάλιστα πιστῶν should be
rendered “that is, believers.” This understanding is
also in line with Paul’s assertion that all sorts and
conditions of people are in Christ (even at times using
πάντες) and with his insistence in those contexts that
all such are in Christ and have salvation by faith (cf.,
e.g., Gal. 3:26–28).1
In other words, if μάλιστα is functioning in the same fashion
as it does in particular secular documents of the time (as noted
by Skeat, the long time Keeper of Manuscripts at the British
Museum and expert on ancient papyri manuscripts), then it
would be identifying the “all men” for whom God is Savior by
the normative Pauline term “those who believe.” This would
mean that all who believe, Jew or Gentile, find God as Savior,
which fits very well with Paul’s concern about the Judaizers
who would limit God’s salvific grace to those who bear the
covenant signs. This same thought is brought out by William
Mounce in his commentary on the same passage:
(2) Those who hold to the doctrine of particular
(limited) atonement often understand πάντων
ἀνθρώπων, “all people,” as “all kinds” or “all groups,”
interpreting the verse as reflecting the growth of the
church from Judaism to the Gentile world. God’s
salvation includes not only Jews but also Gentiles, i.e.,
all groups of people. (3) Skeat translates μάλιστα as
“to be precise,” “namely,” here and in 2 Tim 4:13 and
Titus 1:10, based on the word’s use in the papyri; the
 second phrase is understood as repeating and filling
out the first: “who is the savior of all people, that is,
all who believe” (JTS n.s. 30 [1979] 174–75; followed
by Marshall, “Universal Grace,” 55). (4) Calvin and
others hold that Paul is speaking not of salvation but
of common grace, God’s care for all people (cf. Ps
145:9; Matt 5:45; Acts 14:16–17). In a discussion of
these four interpretations, Baugh shows from
inscriptional evidence from Ephesus that the dead
emperors were viewed as gods and saviors because
they cared for Ephesus and Asia Minor (see excursus
on 1 Tim 1:1): “Taken in this light, 1 Tim 4:10 is
revealed to be a polemical aside aimed at the false
veneration of men who were no longer living, yet who
were publically honored as gods and saviors upon the
Ephesian inscriptions” (WTJ 54 [1992] 338; cf. also
Spicq, 1:368, 510; Grudem, Systematic Theology, 662,
who defines σωτήρ as “one who preserves people’s
lives and rescues them from danger” [599 n. 38]). (5)
There is no fifth option of universalism; the
soteriology of the PE is fully Pauline (see Comment on
1 Tim 2:3–5).2
That this is not merely the attempt of “Calvinists” to “get
around” the “plain meaning” of the text is seen by the adoption
of the same understanding by Marshall and Towner, neither of
whom could be identified as Reformed:
Adoption of the traditional translation of μάλιστα (Tit
1.10 note) as ‘especially’ (so most scholars) leads to
some strained exegesis. The usual solution is to
distinguish between the ‘all’ to whom salvation is
offered and the believers who accept the offer
(Dornier, 81). Kelly, 102f., distinguishes between
believers who have assurance of salvation and others
who may obtain salvation. Easton, 146, is forced to
regard the phrase as addition to original formula (like
Phil 2.8b in the opinion of some scholars). These
problems disappear if we accept the other possible
translation, ‘to be precise, namely, I
mean’(Skeat:1979, 173-7). ‘All’ is thus limited here to
 believers,’ (Knight, 203; cf. Ger. Erst recht, Jeremias,
32; Holtz, 98), but the universal emphasis remains: all
people are potentially believers.3
So it would seem that there is solid and accepted grounds
for understanding this text as fitting into Paul’s polemic
against the Judaizers and their limitation of salvation to the
Jews, and that “all men” is once again a reference to Jew and
Gentiles, specifically, those who believe. This would then
make the sentiment expressed here parallel to what we saw in
John 3:16: no one, ever, anywhere, Jew or Gentile, bond or
free, male or female, who truly trusts in Christ, will ever find
God to be anything other than a gracious and powerful Savior.
2 Peter 2:1 and the False Teachers
But false prophets also arose among the people, just as
there will also be false teachers among you, who will
secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying
the Master who bought them, bringing swift
destruction upon themselves.

Here the Apostle Peter4 harkens back to the story of Israel

to draw a parallel between the people of God in those days and
the primitive Christian church in his own. Specifically, he
makes reference to the fact that God has, for His own
purposes, allowed false teachers to enter into the life of His
people down through the ages. Such was the case in Israel, and
such will be the case in the church age as well. He recognizes
that prophets, by their very nature, command respect when
they claim to speak for the Lord, and in the same way, false
teachers are able to mislead through their exercise of improper
spiritual authority. Though they claim to be servants of God,
bearing His authority, they betray the very position they claim
to possess by teaching and preaching falsehoods. There is an
inherent element of rebellion against God’s order found in
those who pretend to be what they are not, whether they be
leaders or amongst the people. Peter himself establishes the
parallel to the people of Israel with the words, “but false
prophets also arose among the people.” It is appropriate then
to seek Old Testament backgrounds to the concepts found in
Peter’s words, as he would expect his audience to be drawing
upon their knowledge of the Old Testament people of God.
There are numerous examples of false teachers and false
prophets in the history of Israel, to be sure. The endless cycle
of sin, rebellion, captivity, destruction, repentance, and
restoration, could be called one of the major over-arching
themes of the Old Testament.
So what is Peter’s point in this text? This text is transitional,
moving from the preceding discussion of the certainty of the
truthfulness of Scripture to his warning of difficult times to
come. Just as Paul warned the Ephesian elders about the false
teachers that would arise in their own ranks (Acts 20:24ff), so
too Peter and Jude felt it necessary to repeat the same message.
It seems that Christians are always surprised by division,
heresy, and difficulty, as if there was a promise somewhere in
the Bible that God had promised the church easy sailing
throughout her pilgrimage on earth. The warning of the
apostles about false teachers is widespread (Paul, Luke, John,
Peter, Jude). It is one of the major apostolic themes: beware of
false teachers, but, at the same time, be assured that God is not
idle, and that heresy is not a morally neutral thing. God will
punish the false teachers in His own way and in His own time.
Justice will be done. God is still concerned about His church,
even when He allows her to struggle for the faith “once for all
delivered to the saints.”
So our text begins a section announcing both the danger of
the false teachers, and their certain condemnation and
punishment. Following the lead of the preceding chapter, it
draws lessons from the Old Testament and applies them to the
church. The readers should not be surprised that even those
who name the name of the Lord will seek to pervert His
teachings and His way. They will go so far as to bear His name
as a teacher, and yet deny His sovereign lordship over them,
even denying the truth about Jesus Christ. For Peter, Jude, and
John, to deny that Jesus is the only Son of God, or to deny that
He has come in the flesh, is to deny the entirety of the faith.
This is what Peter refers to here, leading to their swift (at least
in God’s accounting of time) destruction.
 To this point I have not raised any of the most problematic
issues relating to the interpretation of this passage. I have done
so on purpose. I wish to demonstrate that the text can be fairly
and contextually read without even taking notice of all of the
areas of dispute and battle. I believe the primary objection to
be raised to the misuse of this text as a proof of universal
atonement is to be found in the non-contextual nature of the
assertion. That is, this text is not about the atonement. It is
about false teachers and their coming judgment. To read the
atonement into the text is to abuse its rightful meaning. And
while we will address the reason people use this text in this
way, we start by emphasizing again the need to let the plain
texts speak first, and only then should we be looking to texts
that are peripheral for further light they can shed on a topic.
We have seen how clear and compelling the argument is for
the perfection of the atoning work of Christ from those texts
that specifically address the topic (Hebrews, Romans). We
dare not overthrow the plain and clear on the basis of what we
think a text might be implying elsewhere.
The primary use of this text is by those who deny the
perfection of the work of Christ in salvation. That is, those
who believe one can be saved, and yet lost, look to this text as
proof. They see that the false teachers are in the church, and
they insist this means they are truly believers. And then they
say, “Look, it says Jesus died for them, so clearly, these are
true believers who go astray and are then lost!” But the fact
that these men are in the fellowship of the church does not
mean they are actually regenerate, of course, as John makes so
plain elsewhere (1 John 2:19) and as Paul explicitly taught
(Acts 20:29-30). And does the text actually say that Jesus died
for these men?
The major errant assumption of most reading of 2 Peter 2:1
is found in assuming facts that are not in evidence, all based
upon the phrase, “denying the Master who bought them.” The
assumption is made that “Master” is automatically Jesus as
Savior, and that “bought” is to be read as synonymous with
“died so as to save.” So often is the text used in this way that
few who quote it even give thought to basic questions such as,
“why does Peter use a completely different term for Lord or
Master here than is normative for Jesus as Lord and Savior
(δεσπότης used here is a different term than κύριος, the
normative word)”? And, “why does the term ‘bought’ used
here (ἀγοράζω) appear without a price mentioned (everywhere
else it is used of Christ’s death, a purchase price is noted)”?
Might there be a reason for this different terminology?
There most assuredly is a reason for Peter’s use of specific
terms. It comes from the context we have already established.
The term “Master” points us not to the concept of salvation
and atonement but to Lordship and ownership. In the same
way, the fact that “bought” is not presented as a mere
potentiality, but a reality, together with the fact that no
purchase price is noted (nothing is said about His blood, His
life, etc.), points us to an ownership issue, not a redemption
issue. The Master who has servants who are to do His bidding
is normative language for the days of Peter, and the rebellion
represented by someone pretending to be a servant of the
Master, who is put in that place and then abuses that authority
even to the point of denying the Master Himself, would be
grave indeed. The Bible uses the same kind of language
elsewhere. Note these words:
They have acted corruptly toward Him,
They are not His children, because of their defect;
But are a perverse and crooked generation.
6 Do you thus repay the LORD,
O foolish and unwise people?
Is not He your Father who has bought you?
He has made you and established you.
(Deuteronomy 32:5-6)
Here Yahweh, the God of Israel, refers to His having
“bought” the people of Israel. But clearly this is an action of
sovereignty, not of redemption, for the parallel is “He has
made you and established you.” Here the Hebrew term is
translated in the Greek Septuagint as κτάομαι (ktaomai). Gary
Long has rightly observed,
 The two words ktaomai and agorazoare used
interchangeably in two Old Testament parallel
accounts (compare II Sam. 24:21, 24 with I Chron.
21:24 and II Kings 22:6 with II Chron. 34:11). These
two words are also closely related in the New
Testament (compare Peter’s use of ktaomai in Acts
1:18 and 8:20 where ktaomai is translated,
respectively, bought and buy in the NIV and acquired
and obtain in the NASB).5
So here we have a very close parallel to 2 Peter 2:1,
containing the same concepts of Lordship/sovereignty, as well
as a parallel concept of “purchase” in the sense of “buy,
obtain” in the realm of ownership. We must insist that the text
does not say that the Master6 tries to purchase, makes purchase
possible, etc., but that as an accomplished fact, these false
teachers had been “purchased” by the despotes, the Despot, the
sovereign Master. Their rebellion against him brings their
destruction, a destruction that had been from “long ago” (2:3).
As Grudem has commented in reference to Deuteronomy 32:6,
“Is not he your Father who has bought you?”….Peter
is drawing an analogy between the past false prophets
who arose among the Jews and those who will be false
teachers within the churches to which he writes….In
line with this clear reference to false prophets in the
Old Testament, Peter also alludes to the fact that the
rebellious Jews turned away from God who “bought”
them out of Egypt in the exodus. From the time of the
exodus onward, any Jewish person would have
considered himself or herself one who was “bought”
by God in the exodus and therefore a person of God’s
own possession. In this sense, the false teachers
arising among the people were denying God their
Father, to whom they rightfully belonged. So the text
means not that Christ had redeemed these false
prophets, but simply that they were rebellious Jewish
people (or church attenders in the same position as
rebellious Jews) who were rightly owned by God
because they had been bought out of the land of Egypt
 (or their forefathers had), but they were ungrateful to
him. Christ’s specific redemptive work on the cross is
not in view in this verse.7
This view maintains the context and flows naturally into the
judgment material that follows. There is no reason to read into
the text all sorts of considerations that have no place in Peter’s
warning about false teachers. The fact that this is such a key
text to many only demonstrates once again how non-Reformed
exegetes are forced to major on minor texts while ignoring the
plain, full discussions of the key issues at stake.
Notes
1 Knight, G. W. (1992). The Pastoral Epistles : A
commentary on the Greek text (203). Grand Rapids,
Mich.; Carlisle, England: W.B. Eerdmans; Paternoster
Press.
2 Mounce, W. D. (2002). Vol. 46: Word Biblical
Commentary: Pastoral Epistles. Word Biblical
Commentary (256). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.
3 I. H. Marshall & P. H. Towner, The Pastoral Epistles (T&T
Clark 1999), 556-557.
4 It is common to assume 2 Peter is not Petrine in origin due
to its language differing substantially in style from 1 Peter
(easily explained by reference to the use of an amanuensis,
possibly even one translating into Greek from Aramaic)
and the relationship it bears to Jude. The assumption made
by most of modern scholarship is that the issues addressed
reflect a “later” situation in the church; hence, it must be a
pseudonymous book. However, such requires us to accept
a theory of church development that is assumed, not
proven. Likewise, the idea that there was a common
theological union and cooperation amongst the church
leaders that would lead two writers to say many of the
same things more than explains the relationship between
the books. Had both Peter and Jude either by direct
personal discussion or by letter cooperated in seeking to
address common problems in the church, the resultant
epistles would bear the very kind of similarities one sees
between 2 Peter and Jude.
5 Gary Long, Definite Atonement (Backus Books, 1977), p.
83.
6 The identity of the Master in 2 Peter 2:1 is probably Jesus,
given the parallel in Jude, however, the fact that Peter does
not see the need to be specific undercuts the assumed
salvific emphasis normally read into the passage.
7 Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Zondervan, 1994),
p. 600.
 More Praise for THE POTTER’S FREEDOM…
C. H. Spurgeon once said that “there seems to be an inveterate
prejudice in the human mind against” the doctrine of
predestination. A brief review of Norman Geisler’s
disappointing book, Chosen But Free, confirms the rightness
of Spurgeon’s judgment. But however uncomfortable is the
doctrine of God’s sovereign freedom to our rebellious, finite
minds, this much must be said: it is indisputably biblical. For
this reason and more, James White’s The Potter’s Freedom is
to be welcomed.
—J. Ligon Duncan III, Ph.D.; Minister, First Presbyterian
Church, Jackson, MI; Adjunct Professor, Reformed
Theological Seminary
In The Potter’s Freedom, Reformed Baptist scholar Dr. James
R. White has done the church a great service by exposing Dr.
Geisler’s faulty work and by positively providing an
exegetcally sound, historically accurate, and theologically
precise apology for Reformed theology. White’s work is
readable to the layman, worthy for the seminary, and will
become a classic refutation of supposed “moderate Calvinist”
views today which are usually a misinformed Arminianism.
—Dr. Fred A. Malone, Author, Pastor of First Baptist
Church, Clinton, LA; Southern Baptist Founders
Ministries Board Member
We live in a dangerous era with regard to Christian literature.
Many dear believers assume that any book in print has come
out of a serious attempt to discern the truth by wrestling with
Scripture and trying to fairly understand the thinking of the
great Christians who have wrestled with the same doctrine in
the past. Sadly today, no matter how unfairly one
misrepresents the classical understanding of biblical truth, one
can often find uncritical readers. Few in this day of
lukewarmness for truth, are willing to do the painstaking work
of refuting such works of distortion. By God’s grace, Dr.
James White has used his considerable gifts in this essential
arena. We are delighted to see his work, The Potter’s Freedom
expose the work of Dr. Norman Geisler, titled Chosen but
Free. Scholars of the debate about free will and God’s
sovereignty immediately see that Dr. Geisler’s book is a
simplistic defense of Arminianism, notable only for the
audacity of calling Arminianism “Moderate Calvinism” and
historic Calvinism “Extreme Calvinism.” Indeed, any who
have read Jonathan Edwards’ Enquiry into the Freedom of the
Will will assume Dr. Geisler is hoping his readers have never
carefully read this definitive destruction of Geisler’s concept
of human freedom on which his whole work rests. Dr. White
patiently exposes Dr. Geisler’s work to the broader evangelical
world, noting Geisler’s complete unwillingness to wrestle with
the exegetical, theological or historical argument of historic
reformed thinkers. Indeed I am sure that Dr. Geisler, with his
distinguished work in the field of apologetics, would be
embarrassed of any Christian apologist who evidenced as little
knowledge of the opposing world view challenged, as he
himself has shown of the knowledge of the biblical defense of
reformed orthodoxy. Dr. White also provides his readers with a
careful presentation of the truth from Scripture, and the
importance of this truth for the Christian life. After reading Dr.
White’s careful work, the reader will clearly see Dr. Geisler as
the emperor with no clothes, whose arguments cannot stand
serious scrutiny. We pray by the work of the Spirit, readers of
The Potter’s Freedom—and Dr. Geisler himself—will come to
see the truth of the only true God, who is sovereign over all
things, especially the salvation and damnation of men.
—Dr. Jonathan Gerstner, Author, Pastor, Baltimore, MD
With great penetration of argument, and in a manner
reminiscent of Luther demolishing Erasmus, James White
grinds the Semi-Pelagianism of Dr. Geisler to fine powder—
not in the spirit of triumphalism, but knowing that all
Arminianism is as hostile to the true gospel as it is friendly to
a reviving Roman Catholicism.
—Maurice Roberts, Editor, Banner of Truth Magazine,
Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
In his characteristically thorough style, Dr. White reveals that
Norman Geisler’s offensive against reformed soteriology in his
book, Chosen But Free, is based on a peculiar and spurious
philosophical theory, rather than on solid biblical exegesis. In
The Potter’s Freedom, Dr. White rolls up his sleeves and does
the exegetical work that is lacking in Geisler’s book. The
result is a marvelous defense and affirmation of what Dr.
White refers to as “the free and proper kingship of God.”
—Buddy Boone, Radio Program Director, WHVN,
Charlotte, NC; WCGC, Belmont, NC; WAVO, Rock Hill,
SC
Lest any reader be misled, this book is not really about
Norman Geisler. Nor is it even about the good doctor’s
miscomprehension of the nature of providence. Rather, it is
primarily about the person, character, and prerogative of the
Sovereign God. In that regard, James White has rendered us all
good service.
—George Grant, Author; Pres., Bannockburn College,
Franklin, TN
When Martin Luther wrote his Bondage of the Will in response
to Erasmus’ Diatribe on Free-will, he pointedly addressed
Erasmus in the Introduction, declaring that the book “…struck
me as so worthless and poor that my heart went out to you for
having defiled your lovely, brilliant flow of language with
such vile stuff. I thought it outrageous to convey material of so
low a quality in the trappings of such rare eloquence; it is like
using gold or silver dishes to carry garden rubbish or dung.”
Sadly, as exhibited by Norman Geisler’s Chosen But Free,
Erasmus was not the last learned man to use his tremendous
literary capacities for such ignoble purposes. But God often
uses assaults upon gospel truth as the occasion for mighty
reaffirmations of the very truths under assault. I thank God
that He has done just that in the publication of James White’s
excellent book, The Potter’s Freedom. It is a comprehensive
refutation of Geisler’s Frankenstein-like creation, which he
names, “moderate Calvinism.” White makes a clear,
compassionate and compelling case for the historic Christian
faith (nicknamed evangelical Calvinism) that is Biblically
saturated, exegetically sound, and theologically as straight as
an arrow. I believe it will prove to be historically significant
and am confident that it will not be met with a competent
response. I heartily commend this fine work to all lovers of the
cause of the Triune God and of His Truth.
—Bill Ascol, Chairman of the Board, Southern Baptist
Founders Ministries, Shreveport, LA
James White’s book, The Potter’s Freedom, is as clear a
presentation of the Reformed doctrine of salvation as I’ve ever
read. He writes with an engaging style and ably defends his
views from scripture. More importantly, he takes on one of
evangelicalism’s major Arminian apologists, Norm Geisler. In
the least, Dr. White demonstrates repeatedly and thoroughly
that Geisler’s supposed “moderate Calvinism” is nothing of
the sort. I am reminded here of the story of Alexander the
Great confronting one of his soldiers who had not lived up to
his duties. The soldier’s name happened to be the same as the
great general’s. Alexander simply told him, “Either change
your name or change your character.” White essentially gives
the same advice to Geisler: you have a right to believe what
you want, but you have no right to call your views “moderate
Calvinism.” White has also demonstrated that Geisler has little
basis to argue that his view—whatever it is called—is
grounded in scripture. What Geisler is is a moderate Arminian
or a “secure” Arminian. What he is not is a Calvinist—in any
sense of the term.
The issues raised in this book are enormous, touching the very
heart of the Protestant faith—a faith that finds its roots in
Reformed thinking. That so many evangelical Protestants
today are ignorant of such roots is a sign of the times: we are
moving closer and closer to a thoroughly anthropocentric
worldview—a worldview that is devoid of both answers and
comfort and, in fact, is beginning to look more like humanism
than Christianity. But spiritual maturity—both individually
and communally—begins with the progressively Copernican
discovery that we are not the center of the universe! At
bottom, White’s book makes a magnificent contribution in this
regard, for it exalts Jesus Christ at every turn, and affirms the
Potter’s absolute freedom to perform his will.
 —Daniel B. Wallace, Ph.D., Professor of New Testament
Studies, Dallas Theological Seminary
In The Potter’s Freedom James White has given us a fresh and
heavily exegetical defense of the biblical doctrine of salvation.
White wrote his excellent review of the biblical underpinings
of the Reformed Faith in response to Norman Geisler’s
Chosen But Free. White’s evaluation of Geisler’s arguments is
thorough and his ability to dismantle those arguments will be
greatly appreciated by those who love their Calvinistic
heritage. Nevertheless, White, in his refutation of Geisler’s
position, maintains a spirit of Christian graciousness
throughout. Though this book was written for the purpose of
debate, its thorough treatment of the prinicpal texts, on which
the doctrine stands or falls, may serve as a textbook for those
who are just coming to understand the doctrines of grace. Here
in one volume is a thoughtful and well-written presentation of
those truths. The English of The Potter’s Freedom is clear and
nontechnical which should make it of value to those who are
unfamiliar with the language of theologians.
—Dr. Joe B. Nesom, Southern Baptist Founders Ministries,
Jackson, LA
In his defense of Reformed theology, James White provides a
refreshingly accurate and objective representation. White
delivers a blow-by-blow refutation focusing solely on the
exegesis of key passages, avoiding philosophical assertions,
while Dr. Norman Geisler leaps out of his area and swims in
unfamiliar waters in his treatment of Reformed theology.
—Edward L. Dalcour, President, Department of Christian
Defense
We decry the subterfuge of politicians as they redefine time-
honored words in order to convince the public that they really
did not raise taxes or commit adultery. Their form of double
speak has so permeated our culture that even the church has
been infected. The theologian, whose task is to learn and
communicate the truth, betrays his trust when he resorts to
redefinition. Yet Norman Geisler in Chosen But Free redefines
some of the church’s time-honored definitions and is guilty of
double speak, when he calls the Reformation doctrines of
grace “extreme Calvinism” and offers a form of Arminianism
as “moderate Calvinism.” Under the title of moderate
Calvinism, he explains away the chief tenets of Calvinism. As
Luther served the church well when he wrote his classic
Bondage of the Will in response to Erasmus’ denial of the
sovereignty of God in salvation, James White has served the
church today in writing The Potter’s Freedom. Mr. White
exposes Geisler’s philosophical methodology and his attempt
to redefine many important biblical concepts while giving a
thorough Biblical defense of true Calvinism. If you have read
Mr. Geisler’s book you must read this response. If you want to
learn more about the great Reformation doctrines (total
depravity, election, particular redemption, effectual calling,
and perseverance of the saints), you need to read this book.
—Joseph A. Pipa, Jr., Ph.D., President, Greenville
Presbyterian Theological Seminary, Taylors, SC
 Comments? Address them to:

Alpha and Omega Ministries

PO Box 37106
Phoenix, AZ 85069

Or email us at:
xapis@aomin.org

Visit our web site at:

http://www.aomin.org

…for information about Mormonism, Jehovah’s

Witnesses, Roman Catholicism,
General Apologetics, and listings of debates,
audio, blog, webscast, and more.
 About the Author

Dr. James White is the director of Alpha and Omega

Ministries, a Christian apologetics organization based in
Phoenix, Arizona. He is a professor, having taught Greek,
Systematic Theology, and various topics in the field of
apologetics. He has authored or contributed to more than
twenty books, including The King James Only Controversy,
The Forgotten Trinity, The Potter’s Freedom, and The God
Who Justifies. He is an accomplished debater, having engaged
in more than sixty moderated, public debates with leading
proponents of Roman Catholicism, Islam, Jehovah’s
Witnesses, and Mormonism. He is an elder of the Phoenix
Reformed Baptist Church, has been married to Kelli for more
than twenty-five years, and has two children, Joshua and
Summer.
 Our Mission

The ministry of Calvary Press is firmly committed to printing

quality Christian literature relevant to the dire needs of the
church and the world at the dawn of the 21st century. We
unashamedly stand upon the foundation stones of the
Reformation of the 16th century—Scripture alone, Faith alone,
Grace alone, Christ alone, and God’s Glory alone!

Our prayer for this ministry is found in two portions taken

from the Psalms: “And let the beauty of the LORD our God be
upon us, And establish the work of our hands for us; Yes,
establish the work of our hands,” and “Not unto us, O LORD,
not unto us, but to Your name give glory” (Ps. 90:17; 115:1).

Please be sure to visit us on the web:

www.calvarypress.com